J

AKARTA: A terrorism observer says that prosecutors are at fault for not convincing judges to sentence Umar Patek to life for making the bombs that killed more than 200 people in separate incidents.

“The reason why Patek was not given a life sentence in prison is because the charges were weak and were unable to be corroborated in court,” Dynno Creesbon, the director of the National Security and Intelligence Studies Center said on Friday over the telephone.

He added that prosecutors had a poor track record in prosecuting terrorist suspects. “Prosecutors will always face an uphill battle in terrorism trials, because the terrorists always protect one another in court.”

Dynno doubted that the five judges that presided over Umar Patek’s case had been influenced by external factors. Convicted terrorists who were summoned to testify against a suspected terrorist always spoke in favor of the accused, Dynno said.

“The 20 year sentence for Patek is completely the result of the judges’ decision. The sentencing would not have been any different had the trial been conducted in either Jakarta or Bali. We don’t use a jury system, so locations and popular sentiment do not matter,” he said.

Patek had been suspected of masterminding the 2002 Bali bombings that killed 202 people.

The court sentenced Umar Patek to 20 years’ imprisonment, much less than the life sentence demanded by prosecutors.

Patek was convicted of illegal possession of firearms, explosive devices and chemicals.