Appeal Verdict in Andrie Yunus Case Deemed Unjust, Prosecutors Urged to File Cassation

A professor at the Faculty of Law of Universitas Jenderal Soedirman (Unsoed) in Purwokerto, Hibnu Nugroho, has said that the appeal verdict in the acid attack case against KontraS activist Andrie Yunus does not yet reflect a sense of justice for the victim and the public. He urged the prosecutors, or public prosecutors within the military justice system, to file a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.

“Cassation provides a space to re-examine the appellate court’s verdict, particularly in terms of the application of the law and the sense of justice in this case,” Hibnu said in a statement on Monday (7/9).

According to Hibnu, the case is not yet fully resolved. He noted that the appeal verdict, which overturned the additional punishment of dismissal against two of the four defendants and reduced their principal sentences, has sparked controversy.

“In the case of Andrie Yunus, the appeal verdict against the defendants who carried out the acid attack has given rise to a controversy,” he said.

Hibnu also highlighted the application of Article 467 of the Criminal Code (KUHP) concerning premeditated assault. He explained that the article stipulates a maximum penalty of four years’ imprisonment for premeditated assault.

“If the act results in grievous injury, the maximum penalty is seven years. Meanwhile, if it causes the victim’s death, the perpetrator may face a maximum of nine years’ imprisonment,” he explained.

According to him, the reduced sentences handed down to the two defendants could be understood to cause disappointment on the part of the victim, as the punishments imposed were considered disproportionate to the consequences suffered by Andrie.

“It is not unreasonable that the victim’s colleagues feel disappointed, because this is not proportionate to the harm suffered by the victim,” he said.

Regarding Andrie Yunus’s absence from the court proceedings, Hibnu stressed that this does not automatically render the court’s verdict invalid.

“The main issue lies in the substance of the verdict, which is deemed not to have provided a sense of justice for the victim. Looking at its substance, it does not reflect a just verdict,” he said.