Zarina lawyers ask court to dismiss ecstasy case

JAKARTA (JP): Defense lawyers for Zarina, a budding TV actress charged with producing, possessing and distributing 29,677 Ecstasy pills, urged the West Jakarta District Court yesterday to dismiss the case because the state prosecutors' indictment was defective according to law.

The team of four lawyers in its rejection of last week's indictment told the court the prosecutors had failed to support their accusations against the defendant with details.

The lawyers argued the indictment which accused Zarina, whose real name is Zarima Mir Mirafsur, of illegally producing and distributing drugs, did not mentioned where and how the Ecstasy was produced.

The prosecutors also failed to mention how and to whom the products were distributed by the defendant, the lawyers said.

They also said the prosecutors had failed to mention the legal conditions under which the drug could be produced, or any books on the standardization of the production when they accused Zarina of producing it in such a way as to violate the Indonesian Pharmacopoeia.

"This means the indictment is incomplete and vague," the lawyers said.

The lawyers said Ecstasy, like the pills allegedly possessed by Zarina, was listed in the Indonesian Pharmacopoeia as a drug not for public distribution.

Amir Syamsuddin, one of the lawyers, said Zarina's case had been blown out of all proportion and this had tarnished her image.

"She has been nicknamed the 'Ecstasy Queen' by the press becoming a victim of the violation of the principle of presumption of innocence," Amir added.

Amir said because her questioning by the Tangerang police officers had been widely publicized by TV stations she had been hurt her and this had caused her to flee.

Zarina, appearing in black long dress, was calm during yesterday's hearing. She busied herself reading the lawyers' written statement and smiled occasionally to lawyers Amir, O.C. Kaligis, Nurhasyim Ilyas, and Henry Yosodiningrat.

Judge Sumantri announced yesterday the court's rejection of the lawyers' request last week for Zarina to be placed under home or city arrest because it did not see any important reason for changing the status.

"We do not see the urgency of putting the defendant under home arrest and she escaped when she was in police custody," Sumantri said.

Lawyer Henry said the team of lawyers would once again request the judges to put their client under home arrest, instead of in the state-owned detention house. (13)