TAUD: Legal Process in Acid Attack Case at TNI Puspom Lacks Transparency

The Advocacy Team for Democracy (TAUD) has stated that the enforcement of the law in the acid attack case against KontraS activist Andrie Yunus at the TNI Military Police Centre (Puspom) and military prosecutors is not transparent and accountable.

This criticism was voiced in response to the transfer of the case file and suspects from the Military Prosecutor’s Office 07-II Jakarta to the Military Court, which took place today.

“The legal process carried out by Puspom TNI and the Military Prosecutor ignores transparency and accountability, as well as the rights of the victim,” said M Isnur, Chairman of the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI), who is part of TAUD, on Thursday (16/4).

Isnur said that to date, TAUD, as Andrie’s legal representatives, has never received official information from the Military Prosecutor’s Office 07-II Jakarta or Puspom TNI regarding developments in handling the case.

This could impact the fulfilment of the victim’s rights in criminal proceedings.

Isnur stated that Andrie, as the victim, has not received the right to truth and guarantees of a fair trial.

He revealed that Andrie has also expressed objections to the acid attack case being processed in the military court, which he described as a den of impunity.

“We view the ‘acceleration’ of the transfer by the Military Prosecutor’s Office 07-II to the Military Court 08-II as not an achievement but an effort to protect intellectual actors, obscure facts, and avoid public pressure,” Isnur said.

The transfer to the military court indicates steps to limit the number of perpetrators and the inability of Puspom TNI and the Military Prosecutor to uncover all actors involved, both field actors and intellectual ones.

Isnur then mentioned the results of TAUD’s investigation, which has uncovered allegations of 16 field perpetrators who coordinated with each other on the day of the attack, not including the intellectual actors.

The transfer to the military court shows an effort to limit the number of perpetrators and not reveal the entire incident of the planned murder attempt against Andrie.

“This acceleration of the transfer we see as also an effort to avoid public pressure demanding investigation up to the intellectual perpetrators,” he added.

Furthermore, Isnur said this transfer strengthens evidence of an attempt to create impunity for TNI soldiers who commit general criminal offences. However, TAP MPR No. VII/MPR/2000 and Article 65 of the TNI Law stipulate that when a military member commits a general criminal offence, they are not acting in their capacity as a military legal subject, but as a citizen subject to general criminal law.

In addition, in practice, sentences issued by military courts for general criminal offences are percentage-wise lower than those in general courts.

KontraS monitoring data shows there were 137 findings of general criminal cases of murder and assault in military courts from October 2024 to September 2025, with the majority of sentences (72 out of 137) being less than one year in prison.

Similar findings are seen in the 2024 study by the Indonesia Judicial Research Society, which shows that for the same articles, the average sentence in military courts is much lower than in general courts.

In rape cases under Article 285 of the Criminal Code, the average sentence in military courts is only about 24 months, while in district courts it reaches 82 months.

“Therefore, trying the perpetrators in military courts is a mistake and can be seen as an effort to shield the perpetrators from harsher punishments,” Isnur emphasised.

Criticism of the aggravated assault charge

TAUD has criticised the use of the aggravated assault charge by the Military Prosecutor. Isnur views this as a form of belittling the acid attack. With sound reasoning and reasonable logic, Isnur said, the acid attack on Andrie should be seen as premeditated murder with premeditation as regulated in Article 459 in conjunction with Article 17 in conjunction with Article 20 of Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code, and not merely planned assault.

Isnur added that the acid attack directed at the victim’s face or vital organs is an attempt at murder. Court precedents have assessed acid attacks as murder.

“Therefore, the use of the aggravated assault article is a form of belittling what Andrie Yunus experienced,” Isnur said.

“We view the effort to downgrade the article to merely planned assault in Andrie Yunus’s case as nothing more than an attempt to protect the perpetrators (impunity) and obscure the facts,” he continued.

He further stated that the determination of the judicial forum in this case should not be solely based on the perpetrator’s status as a soldier, but on the nature of the act committed and its relation to official military duties.

Article 9 of Law No. 31 of 1997 on Military Justice still formulates jurisdiction based on the status of “a person who at the time of committing the criminal offence is a soldier.”

However, Isnur explained, a too mechanical reading of that provision risks closing off more substantial considerations, namely the essence of the criminal offence itself.

In this case, several strong indicators show that the act committed has no relation to official military duties. This is proven by the target being a civilian, occurring in a civilian space, using a civilian modus operandi, and not directly related to the state’s defence function.

“Therefore, an approach in line with constitutional principles is to place this case as a general criminal offence, not giving special forum privileges just because of the perpetrator’s status as a soldier,” he clarified.

Furthermore, the Military Justice Law does not completely close off the possibility of f