Military Court Trial: Andrie Yunus Suffers Permanent Eye Damage in Acid Attack

The sentencing trial for four defendants accused of an acid attack against KontraS activist Andrie Yunus has been postponed. The decision followed testimony from expert witnesses—an ophthalmologist and a plastic surgeon—at the Jakarta Military Court II-08 on Wednesday (May 20). The court proceedings notably involved a controversial comparison between the victim’s severe injuries and the minor wounds sustained by the defendants.

The hearing opened with a request from the military prosecutor to present two expert witnesses from Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital: Dr. Parintosa Atmodiwirjo, a plastic surgeon and head of the medical team treating Andrie, and Dr. Faraby Martha, an ophthalmologist. Both doctors have been overseeing Andrie’s recovery since his initial admission on the morning of March 13, 2026.

Regarding the severity of the victim’s condition, Dr. Faraby Martha testified that Andrie Yunus’s right eye has lost almost all function, capable only of detecting light. Even the largest characters in standard vision tests remain invisible to him, leading the expert to categorize the damage as stage three out of four—the most critical severity level. When asked by the panel of judges if Andrie’s vision would ever normalize, Dr. Faraby was somber: “It is difficult to expect full recovery,” he confirmed, agreeing that the damage constitutes a permanent disability.

The physical trauma extends well beyond his sight. Dr. Parintosa Atmodiwirjo reported that Andrie suffered burns covering 20% of his body. Because the acid penetrated through all layers of the skin down to the fat tissue, the surgeon explained that there is no remaining skin tissue capable of natural regeneration, necessitating intensive skin graft procedures and long-term recovery.

Court Controversy: Comparing Victim and Perpetrator Injuries

A point of contention arose when the defense team requested the experts to examine the defendants’ injuries and compare them to Andrie’s. Dr. Faraby performed a brief examination of the defendants using a phone flashlight but stated he could not draw a definitive conclusion, noting only that the wounds appeared similar. Conversely, Dr. Parintosa, who observed the defendants more closely, refuted the comparison, clarifying that the injuries sustained by the perpetrators were superficial and would heal naturally, unlike the deep, permanent tissue damage suffered by the victim.

The issue of the victim’s attendance was also raised. While judges previously insisted on Andrie’s presence to assess the severity of his injuries, his medical team advised against it. Dr. Parintosa explained that the victim is under strict medical supervision and remains at high risk of infection, especially in crowded environments like a courtroom. When asked by the judge if a virtual appearance via Zoom would be feasible, the doctor confirmed it was medically possible.

Following the expert testimonies, the military prosecutor must now revise the sentencing demands, which were initially scheduled for May 20 but have been pushed to June 3.

Allegations of Ethical Misconduct

The trial has been further complicated by legal challenges. On May 18, the Advocacy Team for Democracy (TAUD), representing Andrie, filed a report against three military judges to the Supreme Court’s Supervisory Chamber, alleging severe ethical violations. Among the accusations, lawyers cited inappropriate language, such as the use of the word “goblok” (stupid) in court, and claims that judges improperly demonstrated how to throw acid. Concerns were also raised regarding the judges handling evidence without gloves and their aggressive pressure on the prosecutor to force the victim’s attendance under threat of criminal charges.

Major Chk Endah Wulandari, spokesperson for the Jakarta Military Court II-08, responded by stating that the court respects the right of TAUD to file these complaints as part of the legal oversight process.

TAUD has consistently criticized the military court system, arguing that it lacks the independence and impartiality required to prosecute its own members. The team has submitted formal rejections of the military trial, claiming it fails to ensure the victim’s safety and deepens his trauma by disregarding his status as a victim of grave human rights violations. Consequently, TAUD is pursuing a pretrial motion at the South Jakarta District Court to challenge what they describe as “veiled” delays and an investigation that lacks transparency and accountability.

The legal team’s frustration stems from the lack of progress after two months of investigation by the Jakarta Metro Police. Despite initial claims of possessing CCTV footage and identifying suspects, the authorities have provided conflicting information regarding the status of the case. TAUD’s own independent investigation suggests that at least 16 individuals were involved in the attack on Andrie Yunus, raising further questions about the thoroughness of the current official proceedings.

Read More:

• Reports suggest authorities are silencing journalists and activists using “foreign agent” narratives.
• Why the “personal grudge” motive in the Andrie Yunus attack case is being heavily questioned.
• Concerns mount over the potential for military impunity after the case was transferred to the TNI Military Police.