Systematic and Planned Elements Present: Andrie Yunus Acid Attack Case Urged to be Tried in General Court

Jakarta, VIVA – Civil society coalitions assess that there are efforts by certain parties to shift the focus of resolving the case following the revelation of the perpetrators of the acid attack on human rights defender Andrie Yunus, which involves four members of the Indonesian National Armed Forces (TNI).

These efforts aim to divert the case’s disclosure by using military courts and connexity courts instead of the general court.

“We affirm that we reject the resolution of Andrie’s case through military courts as stated by the TNI’s Main Military Police and also through connexity courts as conveyed by Commission III of the House of Representatives,” said DeJure Executive Director Bharata Ibnu Reza in a written statement on Friday, 20 March 2026.

According to Bharata, resolving Andrie’s case through military courts is inappropriate and would make it difficult to achieve justice for the victim and society.

He stated that military courts do not meet the principles of good and fair justice (fair trial). Resolution through military courts is not in line with the rule of law principle, particularly the principle of equality before the law as affirmed by the constitution.

“It is only fitting that all citizens are judged based on the crimes and criminal acts they commit, not based on their status as military members or not,” he said.

Thus, said Bharata, resolving Andrie’s case through military courts is not in line with the constitution and the rule of law. It would be difficult to obtain justice in this case if the trial is through military courts.

Furthermore, he said that resolving Andrie’s case through connexity courts is also wrong and mistaken. In Andrie’s case, all current perpetrators are military members, so it cannot be brought to a connexity court process.

“Connexity cases can only be conducted if the perpetrators are military members and civilians, whereas in Andrie’s case to date, the perpetrators are not civilians,” he stated.

From a rule of law perspective, Bharata explained that military courts and connexity courts do not meet the principles of good and fair justice (fair trial). Thus, these two courts are difficult to use as mechanisms for justice in Andrie’s case. Moreover, in practice, these two courts are often used as means of impunity.