UN Peacekeepers and Sex Crimes...

It is too bad that national authorities have the prime responsibility for punishing their nationals who commit sex crimes whilst on active duty with the United Nations (UN). Too bad, because most national authorities fail to appreciate the seriousness of the offenses, quite often perpetrated against children, or there is just no desire to prosecute at the national level.

Nevertheless, at least 50 peacekeepers have been punished by their respective national authorities for sex crimes committed whilst in the service of the UN. The punishments have been somewhat on the light side with most seeing a reduction in rank and the most serious punishment being a stint of eight months in jail.

The UN released the data after repeated requests to do so. However, the UN did not publicize the identities or the nations of the perpetrators of these outrages against human dignity.

Unfortunately for the UN, the UN can investigate the alleged crimes and forward relevant data and information to the relevant national authority. However, it is the national authority that makes the determination to prosecute or not. The data shows that although prosecutions for sex crimes is increasing, there are still vast numbers of allegations that go untried.

Syekh Puji Goes To Trial (and gets acquitted)...

Syekh Puji went to trial in the Ungaran District Court charged with committing sexual abuse on a child. The sexual abuse charges stem from his marriage to an underage girl. I have written about this case elsewhere, and you can find those posts here.

In essence, the Syekh was facing charges relating to violations of Articles 81(2) and 82 of the Child Protection Law and Article 290 of the Indonesian Criminal Code. I also believe that there are charges relating to a violation of the Marriage Law. I have not seen the indictment or read the verdict dismissing the case.

However, the presiding judge in the trial, Hari Mulyanto, dismissed the prosecution case because, in his opinion, the indictment was incomplete, vague, and by default, flawed. Consequently, Mulyanto ordered that the Syekh was free to go and resume his life free of the charges laid. In that sense it is not really an acquittal, because in a technical sense the judge has issued a preliminary ruling stating that the case cannot go forward to trial because the indictment does not make the grade.

Prosecutors, apparently, intend to appeal the verdict. But, what is interesting was that the prosecution seemed to indicate that they will go away and improve the indictment. This suggests that the first time out the prosecutors did not bother to cross all the "t"s and dot all the "i"s.

Appeals in Indonesia generally require that there be new evidence available that was not available at the time of the trial or that there has been an error by the judge(s) in the application of the law. Unfortunately, prosecutors failing to do their jobs is not new evidence or an error in the application of the law.

There seems to be little doubt that the Syekh married an underage girl, and there seems little doubt that he consummated that marriage after her first period, what seems to be in doubt is the ability of the prosecutors to close the deal on this case.

Prita Mulyasari -- The Case Continues...

The Prita Mulyasari case is an interesting one. It is interesting for a number of reasons. First, among these, is the necessity for criminal defamation in Indonesia. Second, was this the right case to test the those criminal defamation provisions. Finally, did the Tangerang District Court err in the manner in which it dismissed the indictments which set Prita free?

I noted in an earlier post that the manner in which the indictments were dismissed left the prosecutors no alternative but to appeal. The reason is simple, the judgment sets a bad precedent. The idea that a law does not come into force until all of the subsidiary or implementing legislation is in place is clearly not the case in Indonesia. The judges in this case have erred in the application of the law.

Even more so when one considers that the article under which the indictment was issued does not require any subsidiary legislation to be effective. This really was a case of putting the cart before the horse. Ultimately, this undermines legal certainty rather than reinforcing it.

Funnily enough when confronted with the fact that the Tangerang Office of the Public Prosecutor were going to appeal this to the High Court in their pursuit of a conviction, Prita is alleged to have said the following, "Is it the prosecutors' personal problem?" I wonder!

Prita's lawyers from the firm of OC Kaligis have stated that if the High Court accepts the appeal, then this would set a bad precedent. I am not sure how it sets a bad precedent as each case is judged on its merits. If the judges believe their is merit in the appeal then that appeal must be granted leave for the appeal to be heard. Prita's lawyers went further to suggest that if the judges accepted the appeal then this is indicative of their arrogance.

In my mind, if the prosecutors did not appeal and the judges did not accept the appeal, then I would argue that both had erred in their duties to the larger community. It is unfortunate that Prita is going to end up as a pawn in this struggle. But, the reality is that the judges fell victim to public outcry and their legal reasoning for dismissing the case is not sound.

The judges would have been better to allow Prita's defense team to present their case and then agree with the submissions of the defense and then dismiss the case because the elements of defamation had neither been made out nor had the prosecution presented sufficient evidence in support of the indictment. And, finally, the defenses to the indictment were made out.

If the judges had done this then Prita would be a free woman and not worrying about an appeal.

I have made the arguments for and against the prosecutors pursuing this case in other posts and they do not need repeating here. If our interested follow the link.