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