A military court in Indonesia has sentenced four intelligence officers to prison terms ranging from one to three years for a targeted acid attack on human rights activist Andrie Yunus. The March 2025 assault, which left the victim with second- and third-degree burns across 25% of his body, has sparked a national debate over military accountability and the protection of civil society advocates, according to court records.
Why the sentencing has drawn criticism
Human rights organizations argue the judicial process was flawed and failed to address the systemic nature of the violence. Amnesty International Indonesia executive director Usman Hamid stated the verdict “downplays the severity” of the assault and protects the military’s institutional integrity. While prosecutors argued the officers did not intend to cause permanent injury, independent investigations cited by Amnesty suggest at least 14 individuals were involved, implying a broader chain of command involvement that remains unaddressed by the current ruling.
The court ordered the destruction of all physical evidence, including the bottle used to hold the acid and a USB drive containing CCTV footage, claiming the move was necessary to prevent the items from being “reused for undesirable purposes.”
How the court viewed the victim’s conduct
The presiding panel, led by chief judge Colonel Fredy Ferdian Isnartanto, explicitly linked the defendants’ sentencing to the victim’s behavior during the trial. The court criticized Andrie Yunus for refusing to participate in the proceedings, which his legal team at the Advocacy Team for Democracy (TAUD) attributed to his ongoing recovery from severe burns and multiple surgeries. Judge Isnartanto stated that by casting a “negative stigma” on the military justice system, the activist’s conduct undermined the court’s authority, a factor the judges admitted influenced their final sentencing decisions.
What are the future implications for human rights defenders?
The case highlights a growing tension between the Indonesian military and the civilian activists who monitor its influence. Human Rights Minister Natalius Pigai has characterized the attack as “an act of terror against civilians,” urging authorities to look beyond the four convicted officers to identify the masterminds behind the grudge-fueled assault. Recent directives from the government have ordered police to continue investigations, signaling a potential shift toward greater transparency, though civil society groups remain skeptical of the military’s willingness to investigate its own ranks.
Comparison: Military vs. Civilian Legal Perspectives
| Entity | Stance on Trial |
|---|---|
| Military Court | Found defendants guilty of premeditated assault; criticized victim for lack of cooperation. |
| Advocacy Team (TAUD) | Dismissed the trial as a “sham” due to limited scope and victim’s medical condition. |
Frequently Asked Questions
- What were the sentences for the officers? The four officers received staggered sentences of three years, 2.5 years, 2 years, and 1 year, respectively.
- Why were the officers dishonourably discharged? Only the two officers who physically threw the acid were dishonourably discharged from the military.
- Is the investigation into the attack over? No. A court has ordered police to continue investigating the incident to uncover potential masterminds.
Stay informed on civil rights developments. Subscribe to our newsletter for weekly updates on justice reform and human rights reporting in Southeast Asia.
