The Supreme Court's split decision to quash the murder verdict of Pollycarpus Budihari Priyanto, the sole defendant in the killing of rights activist Munir, is seen by some as a major blow to efforts to promote human rights and justice. The Jakarta Post's Ary Hermawan spoke with Justice Artidjo Alkostar, who offered the dissenting opinion in the Pollycarpus decision. The following are excerpts of the interview.

Question: Can you explain the legal reasoning behind your conviction that Pollycarpus was guilty?

Answer: First of all, I have to explain the position of the Supreme Court as a judex juris, the highest court whose verdicts are final and binding. The Supreme Court is not judex facti; the district courts and the high courts examine facts. The Supreme Court examines the enforcement of the law as stipulated in the Criminal Code.

Pollycarpus was convicted by a district court and the high court. And the two made a correct decision, although it may have lacked something if seen through conspiracy theory. Pollycarpus was found guilty of two crimes: using counterfeit documents and killing Munir. The conviction should be cumulative, which means the sentencing of the two crimes should be jointly imposed and added together. I agreed with the prosecutors' demand that Pollycarpus be sentenced to life.

I don't think there was anything wrong with the application of the law at the district and high court level, especially regarding the correlation between Polly and the death of Munir. I agree with the legal reasoning of the district court judges, who used a posteriori logic. They observed from consequences first and then causes. Usually the judges use a more conventional way of thinking, which is from cause to consequence.

This is the Munir case seen through a posteriori logic. We have the facts or consequences. Munir was known to have been poisoned to death. How did he die? It is impossible that he died because he fell or had a heart attack. So we have to look for the causes, which are very clear.

The clues are that Polly exchanged seats with Munir. Polly was wandering around the pantry. And he did those things for no reason. It's so strange. He was off duty but forced his way on duty. The trial revealed that Polly was off duty. And the document he used to fly to Singapore turned out to be counterfeited. It could only mean that he was forcing himself to do these things. Those clues are then corroborated by the fact that Polly phoned Munir before the flight.

These signs imply a causality between the consequence and its causes, between the death of Munir and the preceding actions of Pollycarpus. Remember, not merely an activity, but a set of activities. This set of activities correlated with the death of Munir.

The other two justices on the panel said there was no evidence Pollycarpus murdered Munir. Aren't these clues also considered evidence?

Those clues are definitely evidence. It is recognized in the law. Evidence cannot just fall from the sky. It comes out during trial. This is in line with the principle of criminal law, which is to seek material truth. In contrast to the principle of civil law, which is to find formal truth. In the case of Munir, what we're looking for is material truth.

The sense of justice of this nation will be hurt if law enforcers can be easily fooled by criminals and corrupt people. If we are defeated in terms of logic, this country will be broke. We have to be prudent. Law enforcers should be intelligent in dealing with the logic of those implicated in extraordinary crimes.

Can you describe the situation when you heard the Pollycarpus case?

We definitely had a heated debate and the trial was not like a normal one. We were at odds and our differences were so sharp. You see, the other two judges rejected the prosecution's argument and granted the appeal of the defense. The trial was so long that the judges hearing the next case had to wait for us.

Was there any pressure from outside the courtroom?

No. At least, I know there was no pressure put on me. I don't know about the other two justices. Go ask them.

What about the prosecution's plan to seek a review of the case? Is that legal and would it be useful?

That is one of the legal avenues that could be taken by the prosecutors. Pak Bagir (the Supreme Court chief) has set up a panel of judges for the planned review. It is a valid legal measure and there is a precedent when prosecutors sought a review of Muchtar Pakpahan's acquittal.

Are you suggesting that the prosecution file for a review?

No, I'm not in that position. I'm just saying that filing a review would be valid. I know that people have talked about it and I say this discourse is valid.

Anyway, that is not the only way. The public could conduct an examination and studies regarding the verdict, to clear up this case. Unreasonable verdicts could lead to the death of common sense. We have to do this to get rid of the dark side of the Indonesian judiciary. The case of Udin (a journalist at Yogyakarta daily Bernas who was beaten to death in 1996 after writing about corruption cases involving local government officials), for instance, is one of those dark sides. I hope that future generations will have a clearer and brighter history. So there are still many legal avenues available to respond to the verdict.

Munir's widow Suciwati has asked the Supreme Court to reopen the case. What do you think?

No, we can't do that. She has no competence to say so.

Aren't you afraid that people will lose trust in the Supreme Court because of controversial verdicts?

I'm not in a position to answer that question. Somebody else must answer that. If I were still the director of the Yogyakarta Legal Aid Institute, I would be happy to answer it. I think it's unethical for me to say anything about it.