In June, the District Court (PN) of Marabahan, South Kalimantan, sentenced seven men to seven years in prison each for a series of horrific crime. The men had each been found guilty of taking part in at least six gang rapes of a woman, identified by her initial S. But the High Court (PT) of Banjarmasin recently granted an appeal to overturn the men’s convictions, citing “doubts” about the victim’s testimony.
In the original court case, prosecutors had argued, successfully, that the seven defendants from Marabahan’s Antar Baru Village had preyed upon S in July 2016 while her husband was out of town. They had threatened to to kill her family if she tried to prevent the sexual assaults from taking place.
Upon his return, S’ husband noticed she was acting strange and in pain. Eventually, she told him the story of what had happened and together they reported the seven men to the police, who were then arrested and successfully prosecuted.
However, the defendants appealed the verdict and last week the High Court published its decision to overturn their conviction.
Head Judge Sutriadi Yahya, along with fellow judges Permadi Widhiyatno and Maman M Ambari, all said that the decision was based primarily on doubts about the victim’s testimony.
For example, the first reason offered in their decision is, “The High Court doubts the information of the victim who can recount the process of rape in sequence, whereas there were 7 perpetrators.”
So basically, because there were so many assailants, the judges believe S couldn’t have given such detailed testimony. So, apparently, the judges would have had fewer doubts about her testimony if it had been less detailed…
That kind of specious reasoning fills the court document. The three male judges also questioned why S would only report the crime after she had already been raped six times.
The case prosecutors have already pledged to appeal the High Court’s decision to free the once-convicted rapists, citing evidence from a psychologist, a criminal law expert and mobile phone recordings as further proof that S’ testimony was accurate.
