ID :
16250
Mon, 08/18/2008 - 11:36
Auther :
Shortlink :
https://oananews.org//node/16250
The shortlink copeid
News Focus: REQUEST OF AMROZI ET AL FOR EXECUTION BY BEHEADING MERELY A TECHNICAL MATTER
Jakarta, Aug 17 (ANTARA) - The request of the death-row Bali I bombing convicts Amrozi et al for being executed by beheading, instead of by a firing squad, is only a technical matter, a legal observer says.
The reason behind their request to be executed not by a firing squad was their fear for a torture, Said Nizar, SH. MM, a legal observer who is also a lecturer at the Hasanuddin University in Makassar said by phone on Sunday.
Since they knew that their execution is imminent, Amrozi, Imam Samudra and Mukhlas had been insisting that their execution be carried out by beheading, according to Islamic shariah.
An execution by firing squad as stipulated in the law in Indonesia is feared to contain torture because if the first shot missed the heart or not effective, the firing squad will aim at the head of the condemned.
According to Nizar, if this is what they fear, the firing squad could fire all at the same time aiming at the condemned's heart, head or other parts of the body so that the condemned would not suffer too much.
"So it is not necessary for Amrozi et all to ask for an execution by beheading, it is only a matter of technicality. If their request is granted, the government would have to prepare facilities like in France which is too costly," he said.
In addition, this country has no a beheading executioner like in Saudi Arabia, as such executioner should be trained first to do the job which needs some time, Nizar said, adding however it is for the government to decide.
Nizar did not see an execution by firing squad is against the Constitution as perceived by the Muslim lawyers team.
Earlier Amrozi et al filed a request to the Constitutional Court (MK) for a judicial review of the Law on the ways and procedures of an execution as the law contradicts the 1945 Constitution, one of their lawyers said.
The request has already been officially filed with the Constitutional Court by a member of the Muslim Lawyers Team (TPM), Wirawan Adnan, on Wednesday. The Request for a judicial review was made as the law was against Article 28i point 1 of the 1945 Constitution.
"The Law on Procedures of an execution cannot be used as the basis for an execution as it was made by the Gotong Royong House of Representatives (DPR GR) while the DPR GR was set up not through a popular election but through presidential appointments," he said referring to the parliament during President Soekarno's regime.
Therefore, he said, the law had not been made through the proper procedures and its substance also violated Article 281 point 1 of the 1945 Constitution.
Article 28i point 1 of the 1945 Constitution says that the right to live, the right not to be maltreated, the right to have a freedom of expression, the right to embrace any religion, the right not to be enslaved, the right to be recognized as an individual before the law, and the right not to be prosecuted retroactively, are human rights that cannot be belittled under whatever circumstances.
"Execution by firing squad is maltreatment so the law is no longer needed," he said.
According to Adnan, the law also stipulated that a firing squad must aim at the prisoner's heart, and - if the prisoner is still alive, fire again at the prisoner's temples. "This means the the law is inhuman and against Article 28i point 1 of the 1945 Constitution. An execution by lethal injection is more human," he said.
Thus, he said, the execution of Amrozi et al (who were sentenced to death for their role in the 2002 Bali bombings) should be postponed pending a decision of the Constitutional Court on the judicial review of the Law on the procedures of an execution.
He said if the prosecution's office goes ahead with the execution of Amrozi et al, technically there would be no problem, but legally there would be a problem of legitimacy, he said.
Adnan also deplored the fact that until now he and other TPM members had not yet received a copy of the Supreme Court's letter of rejection of Amrozi et al's request for a judicial review of their death. Neither had the TPM been informed about the Supreme Court's session where the decision was made to reject Amrozi et al's judicial review request.
"We are Amrozi et al's defense counsels and as such should have been informed about these Supreme Court processes," he said.
In the meantime, the Coalition for Abolishment of the Capital Punishment (HATI) regretted the attitude of Komnas Ham because it had not yet taken a firm stand on the death penalty as well as on earlier execution of the death-row convicts in the country.
HATI -- which is composed of Kontras (Commission of Missing Persons and Victims of Violence), LBH (Legal Aid Institute), Imparsial and Human Rights Working Group (HRWG) -- expressed regret when it met with Komnas Ham on Wednesday.
Choirul Anam of the HRWG said that the government had executed six convicts this year alone. "The president has also rejected requests for clemency from 39 narcotics convicts who are now on death row," he added.
The execution of Amrozi et al had to be postponed because they were still waiting for the result of their judicial review request from the Constitutional Court.
The reason behind their request to be executed not by a firing squad was their fear for a torture, Said Nizar, SH. MM, a legal observer who is also a lecturer at the Hasanuddin University in Makassar said by phone on Sunday.
Since they knew that their execution is imminent, Amrozi, Imam Samudra and Mukhlas had been insisting that their execution be carried out by beheading, according to Islamic shariah.
An execution by firing squad as stipulated in the law in Indonesia is feared to contain torture because if the first shot missed the heart or not effective, the firing squad will aim at the head of the condemned.
According to Nizar, if this is what they fear, the firing squad could fire all at the same time aiming at the condemned's heart, head or other parts of the body so that the condemned would not suffer too much.
"So it is not necessary for Amrozi et all to ask for an execution by beheading, it is only a matter of technicality. If their request is granted, the government would have to prepare facilities like in France which is too costly," he said.
In addition, this country has no a beheading executioner like in Saudi Arabia, as such executioner should be trained first to do the job which needs some time, Nizar said, adding however it is for the government to decide.
Nizar did not see an execution by firing squad is against the Constitution as perceived by the Muslim lawyers team.
Earlier Amrozi et al filed a request to the Constitutional Court (MK) for a judicial review of the Law on the ways and procedures of an execution as the law contradicts the 1945 Constitution, one of their lawyers said.
The request has already been officially filed with the Constitutional Court by a member of the Muslim Lawyers Team (TPM), Wirawan Adnan, on Wednesday. The Request for a judicial review was made as the law was against Article 28i point 1 of the 1945 Constitution.
"The Law on Procedures of an execution cannot be used as the basis for an execution as it was made by the Gotong Royong House of Representatives (DPR GR) while the DPR GR was set up not through a popular election but through presidential appointments," he said referring to the parliament during President Soekarno's regime.
Therefore, he said, the law had not been made through the proper procedures and its substance also violated Article 281 point 1 of the 1945 Constitution.
Article 28i point 1 of the 1945 Constitution says that the right to live, the right not to be maltreated, the right to have a freedom of expression, the right to embrace any religion, the right not to be enslaved, the right to be recognized as an individual before the law, and the right not to be prosecuted retroactively, are human rights that cannot be belittled under whatever circumstances.
"Execution by firing squad is maltreatment so the law is no longer needed," he said.
According to Adnan, the law also stipulated that a firing squad must aim at the prisoner's heart, and - if the prisoner is still alive, fire again at the prisoner's temples. "This means the the law is inhuman and against Article 28i point 1 of the 1945 Constitution. An execution by lethal injection is more human," he said.
Thus, he said, the execution of Amrozi et al (who were sentenced to death for their role in the 2002 Bali bombings) should be postponed pending a decision of the Constitutional Court on the judicial review of the Law on the procedures of an execution.
He said if the prosecution's office goes ahead with the execution of Amrozi et al, technically there would be no problem, but legally there would be a problem of legitimacy, he said.
Adnan also deplored the fact that until now he and other TPM members had not yet received a copy of the Supreme Court's letter of rejection of Amrozi et al's request for a judicial review of their death. Neither had the TPM been informed about the Supreme Court's session where the decision was made to reject Amrozi et al's judicial review request.
"We are Amrozi et al's defense counsels and as such should have been informed about these Supreme Court processes," he said.
In the meantime, the Coalition for Abolishment of the Capital Punishment (HATI) regretted the attitude of Komnas Ham because it had not yet taken a firm stand on the death penalty as well as on earlier execution of the death-row convicts in the country.
HATI -- which is composed of Kontras (Commission of Missing Persons and Victims of Violence), LBH (Legal Aid Institute), Imparsial and Human Rights Working Group (HRWG) -- expressed regret when it met with Komnas Ham on Wednesday.
Choirul Anam of the HRWG said that the government had executed six convicts this year alone. "The president has also rejected requests for clemency from 39 narcotics convicts who are now on death row," he added.
The execution of Amrozi et al had to be postponed because they were still waiting for the result of their judicial review request from the Constitutional Court.
