REJECTING APPEAL, SUPREME COURT CONFIRMS

C O N F I D E N T I A L JAKARTA 002497 SIPDIS SIPDIS DEPT FOR EAP, EAP/MTS, S/CT, INL FOR BOULDIN DOJ FOR CRIM AAG SWARTZ, DOJ/OPDAT FOR LEHMANN/ALEXANDRE/BERMAN DOJ/CTS FOR MULLANEY, ST HILAIRE FBI FOR ETTUI/SSA ROTH NCTC WASHDC E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/10/2017 TAGS: PGOV PTER ASEC CASC ID SUBJECT: REJECTING APPEAL, SUPREME COURT CONFIRMS CONVICTION OF BALI BOMBER REF: A. JAKARTA 2376 ¶B. 06 JAKARTA 10037 ¶C. 06 JAKARTA 8329 Classified By: POL/C Joseph Legend Novak, reasons 1.4(b)(d). ¶1. (C) SUMMARY: The Supreme Court publicly confirmed September 7 that it has upheld the conviction and death sentence imposed on Amrozi bin Nurhasyim for his role in the terrorist attack in Bali in October 2002. His lawyers say they will appeal the decision despite the fact that all legal remedies have already been exhausted. The justifications cited in the ruling should apply equally to two other Bali bombers on death row. The ruling should allow the GOI to proceed with Amrozi's execution, although no date has been set. END SUMMARY. ¶2. (SBU) SENTENCE UPHELD: Lawyers from the Muslim Defense Team (TPM) in 2006 filed requests for a Judicial Review of the convictions of the three bombers (Amrozi, Imam Samudra and Ali Gufron alias "Muklas") convicted in the October 2002 Bali attack which killed 202 people. The TPM argued that the convictions should be overturned because the men had been convicted under a retroactive provision of the 2003 Anti-Terror Law, which the Constitutional Court (CC) annulled in 2004. As flagged in Ref A, the Supreme Court rejected these arguments. In its review of the Amrozi case, the Supreme Court ruled that the CC decision had not constituted relevant new evidence. The court also found no procedural or substantive errors in the lower courts' decisions. Since the arguments are identical in all three cases, the Supreme Court's decisions in the other two reviews are expected to be similar to that in the Amrozi case. ¶3. (C) The three justices who decided the case were Iskandar Kamil, Djoko Sarwoko and Bahauddin Qoudry. The presence on the panel of Kamil and Sarwoko, both of whom have participated in Mission-funded counterterrorism workshops, suggests the Supreme Court wanted the decision handled responsibly and not overturned. A contact close to Supreme Court Chief Bagir Manan commented that Manan had the authority to assign cases to particular panels of judges and that he often took a personal interest in cases which were likely to garner public attention. The contact also stated the same panel would decide the cases of the other two bombers. ¶4. (SBU) ANOTHER APPEAL PROMISED: The Judicial Review decision closes the only legal remedy that remained for Amrozi, whose conviction had already been upheld twice on appeal. Nevertheless, TPM lawyer Ahmad Michdan called the ruling erroneous and pledged to file a second Judicial Review request for Amrozi. It is not clear whether the court will accept a second Judicial Review request. Michdan complained that the TPM had not been given an opportunity to make oral arguments in the case. (Note: In fact, the TPM had walked out of a Bali District Court session in January on grounds that its motion to move the court venue to Central Java had been ignored by the Supreme Court--ref B.) The TPM also reiterated their statement that the bombers will not request clemency from the President. ¶5. (C) NEAR-TERM EXECUTION?: Assuming that the Supreme Court decision stands--which it should--Amrozi is expected to face execution. To date, the Attorney General's Office has not yet indicated when the execution might take place. There has been some speculation that the execution could take place fairly soon, but there is no confirmation of that. There has been very little public response to the recent news on this case, despite the efforts of some extremist groups to make Amrozi out to be some sort of victim (although he has confessed to his role in the horrific crime and never recanted). HUME