TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - Dahlan Iskan’s lawyer, Yusril Ihza Mahendra, said that it was not true if the determination of the suspects was not included in the pretrial object. It was a criticism of the prosecutor's statement from the Jakarta High Prosecutor in answer at a pretrial hearing of Dahlan Iskan.

"So the most interesting in this trial, the Prosecutor rejected the decision of the Constitutional Court (MK)," Yusril said after the hearing in the District Court (PN) of South Jakarta, on Monday, July 27.

According to Yusril, the High Prosecutor assessed the Constitutional Court (MK) was not authorized to decide that the determination of the suspect became the pretrial object. This opinion was the first time has happened.

In the answer file that was read by the prosecutor during the trials mentioned that before the change of Law Number 8 of 1981, then it should not be changed in any way related to Article 2 and 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) which restricted the ordinances of criminal proceedings, which was included the articles related to pretrial objects.

By doing so, the Criminal Procedure Code clearly was limiting the pretrial just to test the lawfulness of the arrest, detention, and the termination of the investigation. Prosecutors also considered unjustified using theinterpretation by analogy. So the addition of objects in the pretrial was the error form of prosecute.

Yusril assessed, over the years, the High Prosecutor was often inconsistent. The prosecutor will run the verdict of Constitutional Court(MK) when the decision was profitable. However, if it was not profitable, the High Prosecutor will say the Court was not authorized to take the decisions.

"After all, the Constitutional Court's verdict is binding and enforceable immediately when recited in public," said Yusril.

ANTARA