Tomorrow's Diversion Session For AG, David Ozora's Camp Closes Peaceful Doors

Lawyer David Ozora, Melisa Anggraini (Rizky AP/VOI)

JAKARTA - Kubu David Ozora closed peace meetings with all suspects, including AG, in the persecution case. Thus, the legal process will continue. This attitude is aimed at AG who will undergo a trial with a diversion agenda at the South Jakarta District Court on Wednesday, March 29. "As we know tomorrow is the first trial of AG's legal conflict children, where tomorrow procedurally will be carried out whose name is being converted," said David Ozora's lawyer, Mellisa Anggraini, to reporters, Tuesday, March 28. According to him, the diversion effort is indeed a trial mechanism contained in the rules. However, the victim may determine the attitude to reject peace. "The procedure for the juvenile criminal justice system does require that, but tomorrow from the family accompanied by me, we have also prepared a rejection of this diversion," he said. " “ Pasti tidak akan diterapkan diversion jika keluarga menolak, jika korban menolak, jadi diversion besok bisa saya pastikan deadlock,” sambung Mellisa. On the other hand, with the refusal to make peace from David's camp, the trial will proceed to the subject matter. This means that the panel of judges will assess the correct involvement and sanctions for AG as the child perpetrator. "“So of course it will be deadlocked and will proceed to the subject matter of the trial and there will be indictment readings and so on," said Mellisa. For information, from the results of the reconstruction, it was revealed that the role of AG in the series of cases of persecution of David Ozora by Mario Dandy Satriyo. AG apparently participated in recording Mario Dandy Satriyo's brutal actions when beating David. In fact, AG did not show an attitude of empathy or sympathy. AG is known not to intervene in the persecution. AG actually casually smoked when David was asked to repent with his head on the asphalt and hands on the back. In this case, AG is suspected of being under Article 76c in conjunction with Article 80 of the Child Protection Law and/or 355 paragraph 1 in conjunction with 56, subsidiary 354 paragraph 1 in conjunction with 56 of the Criminal Code, more than subsidiary 353 paragraph 2 in conjunction with 56 of the Criminal Code, more than subsidiary 351 paragraph 2 in conjunction with 56 of the Criminal Code.