2002 BALI BOMBER ATTORNEYS BOYCOTT COURT SESSION

C O N F I D E N T I A L JAKARTA 000138

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR S/CT, EAP/MTS
DOJ FOR CTS THORNTON, AAG SWARTZ
FBI FOR ETTUI/SSA ROTH
NCTC WASHDC

E.O. 12958: DECL: 1/17/2007
TAGS: PTER PGOV KJUS ASEC CASC ID
SUBJECT: 2002 BALI BOMBER ATTORNEYS BOYCOTT COURT SESSION

REF: A. 06 JAKARTA 10037

B. 04 JAKARTA 7567

Classified By: Political Officer Adam West for reasons 1.4(b) and (d).


1. (U) The defense attorney for three men sentenced to death
for the 2002 Bali bombings - Amrozi bin Nurhasyim, Imam
Samudra and Ali Gufron alias Muklas - walked out of the
Denpasar court on January 11 without presenting any evidence
during a hearing requested by the defense to overturn the
convictions. Muslim Defense Team (TPM) attorney Fahmi Bahmid
argued that the session should be postponed once again
because the Supreme Court had not yet ruled on the defense's
request to move the venue of the hearing from Denpasar, Bali
to Cilicap, Central Java. When the Judge ruled that the
session would go on as scheduled, Bahmid walked out of court.
The hearing, part of a process known as Judicial Review, was
the final opportunity for the defense to argue in court on
behalf of their clients. The Judicial Review request will
now be forwarded directly to the Supreme Court for a final
decision.


2. (U) TPM lawyers submitted the request for Judicial Review
for the convicted men in September 2006, after the Attorney
General's Office threatened to proceed with their execution
(ref A). The Judicial Review request argues that the
convictions should be overturned because they were based on a
law which was enacted after the crime occurred. The bombers
were convicted in 2003 on the basis of the new 2003
Anti-Terror Law. The Constitutional Court ruled in 2004 that
the law could not be applied retroactively (ref B). At the
time of the ruling there was speculation the ruling could be
used by the courts to overturn the convictions of those
already sentenced under the new law. The appeal is the first
known case in which the defendants have sought to do so.


3. (C) It appears unlikely the convictions will be
overturned. Supreme Court Chief Justice Bagir Manan has
stated publicly he does not believe the 2004 Constitutional
Court decision requires this, a sentiment echoed by other
contacts involved with the case. The reasoning is that the
bombers could easily have been convicted of murder under
other statutes in the criminal code which were in effect at
the time and remain so now. Observers point to the strength
of the evidence underpinning the conviction of the three men:
there is no doubt about their direct role in the bombings.
Additionally, Manan's assistant, Judge Roki Panjaitan, told
us that the defense team's refusal to participate in the
Judicial Review hearing would almost certainly work against
the defendants when the Supreme Court considered the case.
There is a possibility, some say, that the sentences may be
commuted to life imprisonment, given the unconventional
nature of the legal reasoning for upholding the convictions.

PASCOE