The Defendant's Camp, Irfan Widyanto, Wasliated By The Prosecutor, Not Hadikan 2 Experts In The Obstruction Of Justice Case

Session at South Jakarta District Court (Photo: Rizky AP/VOI)

The public prosecutor (JPU) did not present two experts at the follow-up trial of the obstruction of investigation or obstruction of justice case for the death of Brigadier J with the defendant Irfan Widyanto. Both are criminal law experts and experts in the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (UU ITE). Legal adviser Irfan Widyanto, Fattah Riphat also protested to the panel of judges with the prosecutor's move. Because, based on the indictment file, the two experts will provide a mitigating view. "We ask the panel of judges to note that in the case file of the defendant Irfan Wdyanto, both experts in the ITE Law and criminal experts, stated that the defendant Irfan Widyanto could not be held criminally responsible," said Riphat in a trial at the South Jakarta District Court, Thursday, January 5. After the trial, Riphat said the prosecutor should present the two experts. Moreover, their views are used to compile charges. "Because of this, the public prosecutor did not want to present the 2 experts. Whereas the basis for the public prosecutor's indictment is one of the expert statements," he said. In addition, he also said that Irfan Widyanto could not be charged with all the articles charged by the prosecutor at this time. This refers to the statements of the two experts contained in the case file. "This means that the defendant Irfan Widyanto, according to experts, cannot be charged with all the articles charged," said Riphat. In this case, Irfan Widyanto, who is the winner of Adhi Makayasa, is suspected of being involved in the destruction of CCTV evidence at the investigation of the death of Brigadier J. He was accused of taking and replacing CCTV DVR from around the Ferdy Sambo official residence, precisely at the Police Complex security post, Duren Tiga, South Jakarta. Thus, Irfan Widyanto is suspected of violating Article 49 in conjunction with Article 33 subsidiary Article 48 paragraph (1) in conjunction with Article 32 paragraph (1) of the ITE Law Number 19 of 2016 and/or the second indictment of Article 233 of the Criminal Code subsidiary Article 221 paragraph (1) to 2 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph 1 to (1) of the Criminal Code.