3. COURT (63cm) -- 36pt Bodoni Bold 7/1 (1x51)

3. COURT (63cm) -- 36pt Bodoni Bold 7/1 (1x51)

Why defendant can walk free after being found guilty
can we use this one? -- why not?

Muninggar Sri Saraswati
The Jakarta Post
Jakarta

It happens here every now and then: A defendant is declared
guilty but can walk free after the judges have delivered their
verdict.

Ari Haryo Wibowo, alias Ari Sigit, and grandson of former
president Soeharto, was one of many defendants who "enjoyed" such
a verdict. On Dec.20, the Central Jakarta District Court found
him guilty of illegal possession of 70 live bullets and sentenced
him to a jail term of two months and 22 days.

But he was freed immediately after the hearing because the
sentence was deducted from the time he had already spent in
detention and under house arrest.

After being arrested on Aug. 14, 2001, Ari was first held at
the city police headquarters, and was then transferred to Salemba
detention center before he was later put under house arrest. The
period he had spent under house arrest was equal to one-third of
the time spent in jail. Therefore, the total of the time he spent
in detention was exactly equal to two months and 22 days.

Earlier last year, the Central Jakarta District Court found
Endin Wahyudin guilty of defaming two Supreme Court Justices,
Marnis Kahar and Supraptini Sutarto, and sentenced him to three
months' imprisonment.

But Endin was released after the trial because he had spent
exactly three months in detention during the interrogation and
hearings.

The most recent case occurred last week when the Tangerang
District Court convicted a labor activist for stealing a pair of
reject sandals from the factory where he used to work.

Even though defendant Hamdani bin Ijin wore the sandals only
for the wudhu (ablution ritual) before he performed Friday
prayers at the factory compound, he got two months and 24 days,
or the same as the time he had spent in detention at the
Tangerang Penitentiary.

Hamdani's sentence was more onerous than Ari's, who was
charged under Emergency Law No. 12/1951 with illegal possession
of firearms and ammunition. The charge carried a maximum penalty
of death, or a possible life sentence.

Lawyers also questioned why Endin was prosecuted even though
he was under the Attorney General's witness protection scheme.
The two Supreme Court justices were also prosecuted, but the
Central Jakarta District Court later set aside the case, giving
the reason that the prosecutor had charged them under the wrong
legislation.

While the public was disturbed by the unfair verdicts, it also
found it strange to learn that a court could hand down a sentence
exactly the same as the length of time already served by the
defendant.

A judge at the Central Jakarta District Court, who once handed
down a controversial verdict, admitted that judges could give a
light sentence because the Criminal Code did not stipulate the
minimum length of a jail term.

"Based on the code, a judge is permitted by law to set the
term," said the judge, who spoke under condition of anonymity.

=============
4. GREATER JAKARTA
5. PIX 3x9
6. ADS 4x14 (PT Nestle), 3x8 (Total Fina), 3x5 (Bank
Commonwealth)