TAUD: Acid Attack Verdict on Andrie Yunus Exposes Strong Impunity Within the Military

The Advocacy Team for Democracy (TAUD) has issued sharp criticism of the 1.5 to 3-year prison sentences handed down by the Jakarta II-08 Military Court to four Indonesian National Armed Forces (TNI) soldiers for the acid attack on Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras) activist Andrie Yunus. The victim’s legal team believes the punishment does not reflect a sense of justice and instead demonstrates the strong practice of impunity in handling cases involving military personnel. TAUD representative Jane Rosalina stated that the panel of judges’ verdict failed to show accountability for the violence suffered by Andrie. She argued the judicial process protected the institution’s image more than it prioritised the victim’s rights. “This is the face of impunity once again displayed through a military justice process, which we have continuously seen prioritises the dignity of the TNI institution over processing or showing accountability for a criminal act,” Jane said in Jakarta on Wednesday. She assessed that there was no serious effort to uncover the facts thoroughly or deliver justice for the victim. TAUD considers the sentences imposed on the defendants to be too light compared to the impact of the acid attack. “What we see is that there is no accountability in this case and no uncovering of the truth. Not to mention justice, which certainly does not exist and is not visible from the judicial process carried out by the Jakarta II-08 Military Court,” she stated. Furthermore, Jane highlighted that the low sentences reinforce the impression that the legal process has not sided with the victim. “This is also reflected and demonstrated by today’s ruling, which only punishes the perpetrators with low sentences and inadequate compared to what they did,” she said. TAUD also criticised the panel of judges’ consideration that the defendants had no intention of causing serious injury to Andrie. They argued the reasoning that the perpetrators only intended to give a “lesson” and a “deterrent effect” is a problematic consideration from a human rights perspective. “The panel of judges stated that the serious injuries suffered by Andrie Yunus were not the intent or purpose of the defendants because they only meant to give a lesson and a deterrent effect. This is a highly problematic consideration from a human rights perspective,” Jane said. Going further, TAUD questioned the use of military justice in this case. They believe that cases involving attacks on civilians should be examined through the general court system, not a military court. Jane stated that the construction of the case shows the criminal acts fall under the general court’s jurisdiction, but because TNI members are the perpetrators, the legal process was taken to a military court. “The construction of this case is not within the jurisdiction of the military court, but the general court. Yet it seems forced because there is the involvement of a military apparatus in the attack on Andrie Yunus, so it is forced through the military court,” she said. TAUD also alluded to allegations of involvement by more perpetrators in the incident, assessing that the ongoing legal process has not fully uncovered the sequence of events and responsible parties. At the verdict hearing, the Jakarta II-08 Military Court found the four defendants guilty of violating related articles of Law Number 1 of 2023 concerning the Criminal Code. The panel of judges handed down different sentences: Second Sergeant Edi Sudarko received three years in prison and a dishonourable discharge, First Lieutenant Budhi Hariyanto Widhi received 2.5 years and a discharge, Captain Nandala Dwi Prasetyo was sentenced to two years, and First Lieutenant Sami Lakka received 1.5 years. The government stated it respects the decision of the military court.