BALI BOMBERS' CASE BACK IN COURT

C O N F I D E N T I A L JAKARTA 000440 SIPDIS SIPDIS DEPT FOR EAP, EAP/MTS, EAP/MLS, S/CT, INL FOR BOULDIN/BUHLER DOJ FOR CRIM AAG SWARTZ, DOJ/OPDAT FOR LEHMANN/ALEXANDRE/BERMAN DOJ/CTS FOR MULLANEY, ST HILAIRE FBI FOR ETTUI/SSA ROTH NCTC WASHDC NSC FOR E.PHU E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/03/2018 TAGS: PGOV KJUS PTER ID SUBJECT: BALI BOMBERS' CASE BACK IN COURT REF: JAKARTA 295 AND PREVIOUS Classified By: Pol/C Joseph Legend Novak, reasons 1.4(b+d). ¶1. (C) SUMMARY: Attorneys for the three terrorists on death row for carrying out the 2002 Bali bombings will have an opportunity to present evidence in support of their latest request for judicial review on March 10. A Bali judge denied the defense's request to move the trial venue to Central Java, where the men are being detained. While the bombers' sentences will almost certainly be upheld yet again, the ongoing legal maneuvers could potentially postpone the execution of the three by at least a few months. END SUMMARY. ¶2. (U) ANOTHER HEARING: The District Court in Denpasar, Bali, has ruled that the three Bali bombers will be allowed to submit evidence to the court on March 10. The three convicted terrorists--Amrozi bin Nurhasyim, Imam Samudra and Ali Gufron alias "Muklas"--were sentenced to death for carrying out the October 2002 attack that killed 202 people. Their sentences were upheld twice on appeal and a subsequent request for judicial review of the decision was rejected by the Supreme Court in 2007. ¶3. (SBU) AN UNUSUAL REQUEST: Muslim Defense Team (TPM) chief lawyer Ahmad Michdan filed an unusual second request for a judicial review of the case in January (reftel). The request argues that the original judicial review decision was not carried out according to procedure, as the defendants did not present their evidence in court and were not notified of the decision within the proscribed time. The Supreme Court originally stated that the law did not provide for a second judicial review, but then allowed the case to go forward anyway when the Attorney General's Office (AGO) made clear it would not carry out the execution without a formal ruling on the request. ¶4. (C) Once the evidence is heard, the case will be transferred to the Supreme Court for a decision. The Court has already upheld the sentences against the three bombers on two separate occasions, and there is little reason to think that the outcome will be any different this time. ¶5. (C) BUYING TIME: The terrorists and their lawyers are clearly buying time. The second review request forced the AGO to back off from its threat to execute the three men in February. TPM apparently hopes that they can delay the whole matter deep into the political calendar (presidential and legislative elections are slated for 2009) and thus make it difficult for the government to carry out the executions. While the success of their ultimate strategy is far from assured, the TPM has at the very least shown itself adept at keeping the case, and their clients, alive. HUME