07 June 2007
Former Rose Team Commander Wants Judicial Review of Human Rights Court Law
Former “Rose Team” Commander, Major (retired) Bambang Kristiono, filed a proposal for s judicial review of the Human Rights Court Decree at the Constitutional Court, yesterday (5/6).
Bambang, via his attorney Mahendradatta, asked the Court to correct Article 43 Point 2 of the Decree No. 26/2006.
“Bambang is worried because the articles can lead him being scrutinized again by the ad hoc Human Rights Court,” said Mahendradatta at the Constitutional Court, yesterday.
Bambang is a former Army Infantry Major who was Battalion 42 Commander Group 4 of Special Force Command (Kopassus) and concurrently “Rose Team” commander.
“Rose Team”was the team involved in kidnapping and making activists disappear by force cases of in 1997-1998.
Bambang was sentenced to 20 months imprisonment by the Supreme Military Court in 2000 and was also dismissed from the Army because of the case.
Mahendratta said Article 43 Point 2 of the law states that the ad hoc Human Rights Court was formed based on the House of Representatives' (DPR) suggestion with the President's decision.
The article's explanation states that the ad hoc Human Rights Court was formed after the House deemed there had been a severe human rights violation during a certain event in a certain time and place prior to the Human Rights Decree being effective.
According to him Mahendratta in the activists kidnapping case, the Human Rights National Commission sent a letter to the House on December 27, 2006, and Bambang's name is in the letter.
The letter states that Bambang can be asked for statement as regards activists kidnapping cases.
“The nebis in idem principle may not be valid for our client,” said Mahendratta.
The trial began with preliminary questioning by the panel of judges led by judge H.A.S. Natabaya.
Constitutional judge Natabaya asked the applicant which constitutional right of him that was infringed due to the decree.
He asked the applicant to strengthen the legal standing of the judicial review.
“The constitutional loss suffered by the applicant is not clear,” he said.
_____
sourceLabels: Internet News, Law, Politics
My mind's unweaving/ 4:31 PM
