Indonesia – On 5 September 2026, the Jakarta High Military Court II-06 upheld the appeals of two Indonesian National Armed Forces (TNI) personnel convicted for their involvement in the acid attack against KontraS activist and human rights defender Mr Andrie Yunus. The court reduced their prison sentences and overturned their dismissal from military service, prompting renewed criticism from civil society organisations over the adequacy of the judicial process and the continuing failure to establish accountability for all those involved.
The appeal court reduced the sentence of Second Sergeant Edi Sudarko from three years to two years and six months, and that of First Lieutenant Budhi Hariyanto Widhi Cahyono from two years and six months to two years. Both soldiers were reinstated in military service. The sentences of Captain Nandala Dwi Prasetya and First Lieutenant Sami Lakka, who had received two years and one year and six months, respectively, remained unchanged. The original verdict, delivered by the Jakarta Military Court II-08 on 10 June 2026, had found the four defendants guilty of premeditated assault causing injury.
The Coalition of Civil Society for Security Sector Reform rejected the appeal decision, arguing that the reduced sentences and cancellation of dismissal were disproportionate to the gravity of the attack and the suffering inflicted on Mr Yunus. In a statement issued on 5 September 2026, the coalition called on the Supreme Court and Judicial Commission to examine the appeal proceedings and the legal reasoning behind the reductions in a transparent and accountable manner.
Indonesia's Minister of Human Rights, Natalius Pigai, also called on the victim's lawyers to file a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court and, if possible, pursue a further judicial review. In a statement on 5 September 2026, Pigai said that while the government respected the court's decision, the judicial process must consider social sensitivity and justice from the victim's perspective. He argued that dismissal from military service would be appropriate if the two soldiers were proven responsible, given the criminal nature of the attack and the damage caused to the state and the Strategic Intelligence Agency (BAIS).
Serious injuries and unresolved questions of command responsibility
Mr Yunus, Deputy Coordinator of the Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (KontraS), was attacked with acid on 12 March 2026 after attending a podcast discussion at the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI) in Central Jakarta. Medical testimony during the trial confirmed that he sustained deep burns covering approximately 20% of his body and permanent damage to his right eye, which is reportedly capable of perceiving light only.
The Advocacy Team for Democracy (TAUD), representing Mr Yunus, has consistently challenged the military proceedings and the prosecution's account of a personal vendetta. According to TAUD's independent investigation, more than 16 individuals were allegedly involved in surveillance, preparation and execution of the attack. TAUD maintains that the assault formed part of a coordinated intelligence operation and has called for the investigation to identify all perpetrators, including those who may have ordered or directed it. These allegations have not been established by the military court, which rejected the characterisation of the attack as an intelligence operation.
On 2 June 2026, the South Jakarta District Court partially granted TAUD's pre-trial application and ordered the Metro Jaya Police to continue investigating the case. According to the latest reporting, there has been no publicly reported progress in implementing that order.
The appeal decision reinforces concerns regarding the independence and effectiveness of military justice in cases involving serious violence against civilians. Indonesia has an obligation to ensure a prompt, thorough, independent and impartial investigation, effective remedies for Mr Yunus, and accountability for all persons responsible, regardless of rank or institutional affiliation. The protection of human rights defenders and the prevention of further attacks must remain central to the authorities' response.