Fair justice or a farce?

Referring to the article in The Jakarta Post, on Feb. 8, 2000, titled West Jakarta Court drops charges against Zarina, I lament and regret the judgment.

Reputedly in this court, the judge made the decision to free Zarina because there was not enough evidence to punish her.

The judicial process and the verdict in this case really baffled me because on one side the prosecutor charged Zarina of illegally possessing a psychotropic substance which violates Article 62 of the 1997 Law on Psychotropic Drugs, while on the other hand the judge freed Zarina because the prosecutor failed to explain the term "collaborated with" and didn't compose the indictment in an accurate and complete manner.

I regret this judicial process and the judgment because: if it is said that in the indictment the prosecutor didn't clearly describe that the defendant committed the crime along with her friend Ahian Santoso, alias Yeye. Didn't the prosecutor send suitable evidence, and if he didn't, (if it isn't against the Criminal Code) why didn't the judge give a chance to the prosecutor to explain the term "collaborated with" and to get supporting evidence?

Presiding judge Basuki instead said that the prosecutor violated Article 143 of the Criminal Code because the prosecutor didn't compose the indictment in an accurate and complete manner.

This explanation is unbelievable. How could a prosecutor, an expert in law, make such a foolish error? Because violating an article of the Criminal Code is also a crime.

The dispute between prosecutor and the judge amounts to an unprofessionally conducted trial.

Zarina's case is a notorious one in which the public is interested and has paid serious attention to.

H.M. HADI S.

Cimahi, West Java