Year 2000:

• A group of radicals lead by the secretary general of “KSD” (Indonesian Islamic Solidarity Organization, known for its radical views) began an extensive media campaign denouncing Anand Krishna’s books as anti-Islam, and equated him with Salman Rushdie.
• Gus Dur (the late 4th President of Indonesia) deputed his nephew (Gus Wahid) to protect Anand Krishna and his Ashram
• Publishers of Anand’s books were threatened, and they had to recall all books from all bookstores.
• Due to popular support, the Publishers began to sell Anand’s book just one week later (absent 7 titles which related to Islam).
• Muhammad Djemaat Abrory Djabbar (Abrory), a lawyer and his singer wife Dian Maya Sari attended the ashram and volunteered to arrange meeting between Anand Krishna and KSD’s Secretary General.
• In the meeting, AH, the Secretary General threatened to “kill you, AK, since you are smarter than Salman Rushdie. And, if I take you to the court, you may win the case. You know Qur’an and the sayings (hadis) of Prophet; you can define them to your favor.” The meeting ended abruptly.
• Abrory and his brother (who now run the radical Islamic monthly publication) suggested that Anand Krishna introduced them to his Publishers to brief them about the “fundamentalists’ mentality, so they may protect themselves against any future attacks.”
• Anand Krishna agreed to the meeting. During the meeting it became clear that they wished to appoint the publishers as their speakers/agents on all their affairs related to Islam and Islamic Organization. Anand Krishna clarified to his publisher that he had no previous knowledge of what Abrory and his brother wanted, and suggested that the meeting was closed.
• Abrory irregularly returned to the ashram until 2005.

Year 2005:

• In the Month of September, Anand Krishna and his friends formed the National Integration Movement (NIM).
• Abrory was once again active and regularly attend programs in Ashram.
• The first symposium held by the movement at the National Defense Institute was attended by the defense minister, Jakarta and the institute governors, Gus Dur, multiple religious figures, and several other dignitaries.
• At that time Abrory stated that “my friends would not like to see Anand Krishna getting involved in a movement like this”.
• During December 2005, Abrory recruited two ashram friends to send a summons to Anand Krishna relating to embezzlement of 140 million rupiahs.
• One media outlet carried the news, no other media outlet believed the story.
• The case was settled when the accusers withdrew their case after it was determined by the police that there was insufficient evidence to proceed.

Year 2010:

• When Tara Pradipta Laksmi first reported the alleged sexual harassment to the National Commission of Women she was supported by Muhammad Djemaat Abrory Djabbar and a group of ex-ashramites.
• Meanwhile the extensive anti-Anand Krishna media campaign continued unabated. There would be days when all television stations would repeat over and over the news about this.

Year 2011:

• The Islamic Defender Front (FPI), a notorious-violent-radical Islamic group, attended the second trial

Despite medical reports submitted to the Police which outlined Anand Krishna’s diabetes, hypertension and other medical complications, he was held from morning until late evening, the last 3 hours of which he was prohibited from going to the toilet. His collapse was a direct result of the mistreatment. For the next 3 days he was put on heavy dosage of pain killers and some other sedatives, the details of which were not properly disclosed to him.

Finally, when he was allowed to shift to another hospital, he was diagnosed with bigeminy, a heart condition, which has ever since continued. Bigeminy is a potentially fatal condition where minimal physical stress can cause the heart beat to increase by up to 3 fold.

• Several witnesses called by the panel judges testified that Muhammad Djumaat Abrory Djabbar was involved in process of prosecuting Anand Krishna, as coordinator and facilitator. Testimonies included private meetings at his house, presenting “evidences” to police, financing road shows and out of city’s trips, and writing the report of Anand Krishna’s alleged brainwashing techniques. The report quoting only 3 of Anand Krishna’s 150+ publications, quoting only those sections describing the relationship between Guru and disciple, etc. The three publications in question are: Kama Sutra, Sexual Quotient: Transcending Kamasutra to enter Tantric, and Tantra Yoga (theme: Nalopa-Tiropa). This report of Anand Krishna’s alleged brainwashing was then accepted as evidence in the court despite objections from the Defence’s counsel.
• Muhammad Djumaat Abrory Djabbar was called as a witness, and confronted by lawyer for the Defence, Darwin Aritonang S.H regarding the ‘terms of reconciliation’ which he had presented to Anand Krishna when they met several months earlier in Studio TvOne. At the time, Abrory had stated to Anand that he would make the case go away if he complied with 3 conditions: (1) Anand Krishna should apologize in public, (2) Anand Krishna should leave Anand Ashram Foundation (AAF) and never been involved again in its activities, (3) All assets of AAF should be surrendered and transferred. The lawyer raised the question of this meeting and the aforementioned terms, Abrory got angry and yelled in front of presiding judges that he would kill the lawyer and Anand Krishna, seconds later he attempted to correct his statement, claiming that he had meant that he would kill Anand Krishna’s idea and would report his teachings to the Islamic Clergy Council (MUI) and Hindu Priest Council (PHDI).
• No witnesses came forward who had credible or provable stories and no evidence was presented which corroborated any of the witnesses stories.
• The case against Anand Krishna relied solely on the statements of expert witnesses; two hypnotherapists with falsified education and professional credentials, and Criminal Law expert, Dr Satrio from Indonesian University, who is known as a supporter of FPI (Islamic Defender Front).
• Dewi Pratomo, Tara’s personal therapist, was permitted by the court to be an expert witness in the trial, denying any possibility of subjectivity and representing a conflict of interest. She claimed to media that she has been a practicing hypnotherapist for 20 years although the Hypnosis Motivation Institute (HMI) told us that she just completed her distance education in February 2009 and that the course did not qualify her as a Doctor of Hypnotherapy without further training. Link to Emails from Director of Distance Education HMI
• Dewi Pratomo also claimed to Media that, after isolating the accuser (Tara) from the outside world for 4 months and conducting 45 sessions of hypnotherapy, she had successfully recovered repressed memories from Tara relating to the alleged offences. However according to Prof. LK Suryani PhD, founder of CASA (Committee Anti Sexual Abuse) & Chief of Psychiatric Laboratorium of Udayana University, and Adi W Gunawan – a leading expert in Mind Technology, conducting 45 hypnotherapy sessions to a patient would be considered an overdose and is not only unethical practice for a hypnotherapist but could also lead to brain washing or false memory implantation.
• Another Hypnotherapist Wowiek Prasantyo Mardigu claimed in the court that he had undertaken a 9 month training program with the Hypnotherapy Training Institute (HTI), but the director of the institute denied his claim. Link to Email from the director of HTI Mardigu also testified that he would do anything according to the orders of the clients who had paid him.
• More than 85% of the questions and evidence presented to the court had no relevance to the charges and instead related to the teachings of Anand Krishna and their relationship to Islam. Three of his 150+ books were targeted as anti Islam and formed the basis of most of the questions presented to witnesses.
• One defense witness, 19 year old student and old friend of the Tara, was asked by the prosecutor in the trial as to whom did she idolize. When she mentioned Mahatma Gandhi, the prosecutor asked, “but, you are Muslim” implying that it was strange, or wrong, to idolize a Hindu figure for a Muslim.
• Another witness, Mrs Norma (chartered accountant) was questioned as to whether she was ever taken to India. Mrs Norma was baited to provide a loose admittance that teachings at the Ashram have a hidden agenda of hinduizing people of different faiths. [Taken from Court Recording & Transcript received from Anand Krishna’s Lawyers]
• Another defense witness was also asked about dupa (incense) and crystal. When she answered that the dupa was used for aromatherapy, and crystal for healing therapy, the prosecutor refused to accept the answers. These are not isolated cases – many witnesses were never questioned in relation to the sexual harassment charges and instead are questioned exclusively in accordance with the unstated charge of religious blasphemy (in line with the statement of the accusers lawyer in a media statement on 25 Feb 2010).

Darwin Aritonang SH, Anand’s lawyer, insisted that the arrest clearly violates law. “A person could be detained before a final verdict for three reasons only. These are preventing a suspect from removing evidence, fleeing, and repeating his/her criminal action,” said Darwin. “All of those premises were irrelevant in this case. In addition, Anand had permanent heart disease, diabetes, and high blood pressure, which hindered him from any kind of arrest.”

This controversial arrest had drawn attention from fellow activists and proponents of Anand’s peace movement including Rev. Mindawati Perangin-angin, Pastor Frans Magnis Suseno, Pastor Johanes Hariyanto, Prof Musdah Mulia, Djohan Effendi, Muh. AS Hikam, Muhammad Guntur Romli, Nong Darol Mahmada, Adnan Belfast and Osmar Oscar Sinurat. They sounded their concern about the arrest and raised questions as to whether this arrest was merely part of an agenda to silence of the establishment of pluralism in Indonesia since Anand had been well-known as a key figure in the pluralism movement in Indonesia.

Balinese High Hindu Priest, Ida Pedande Sebali and prominent Muslim leader – Gus Nuril (K.H. Nuril Arifin Husein) also attended Cipinang Detention Centre to offer their support to Anand Krishna, along with Actress Ayu Dyah Pasha and Poppy Dharsono, Central Java Senator.

When asked why he had begun the hunger strike, Anand firmly answered, “I felt I was being oppressed by the judge’s determination to detain me, since during the court trials we had been very cooperative, and most importantly none of the evidences were proved … Moreover, the statements of the witnesses were very inconsistent, and the actual court events were incongruent with the official report of the trial … As a protest to the judgment which I believe was very inhuman and even not considering my health condition where I had had a very tight diet due to suffering from diabetic and high blood pressure, therefore, as a protest and rejection to this injustice, I decided to do fasting until this inhuman judgment was repealed. Hopefully, the judge panel and the public prosecutor were given enlightenment and clear mind by God. I also hoped if my health condition was disturbed, I begged no enforcement to make me eat. Let me die if that what people who put me into this case wanted- to silence my voice of nationality, harmony mission, and my principal of unity in diversity. I begged all my friends who were in the same mission and vision would continue our struggle, and did not give up by any power that hindered us. With Love”.

Adnan Buyung: Judge’s decision is careless (translated into English)

http://megapolitan.kompas.com/read/2011/03/24/19493151/Adnan.Buyung.Tindakan.Hakim.Ceroboh.

JAKARTA, KOMPAS.com – Adnan Buyung Nasution, a prominent Human Rights Activist and legal practitioner, has expressed concerns with the position and disposition of the judges presiding over the case of spiritual leader, Anand Krishna. The position of the judge who it seems has judged Anand as guilty, appears to have violated the Criminal Procedure Code and the judges code of conduct.

“I’ve been in the field of law, for more than 50 years. And this is the first time that I have ever seen anything like this; that a judge has put someone in guilty position, before the final verdict of the court,” said Adnan Buyung after visiting Anand Krishna at the Police Hospital, Kramat Jati, Jakarta , on Thursday (03/24/2011).

According to Buyung, the judge’s act was careless and violated the Criminal Procedure Code Article 158 and the code of ethics of judges which is free and impartial.

“Just imagine, the case is still in process, just 9 of 25 witnesses were examined, the demands of the prosecutor have not been heard, the suspects defense has not been heard, and there has been no court ruling. That means there’s no proof that he (Anand Krishna) is guilty, “said Buyung.

On that basis, Buyung thought that is very un-ethical of the judge to treat Anand as someone who has committed a crime. With the judicial process is still running, added Buyung, it is possible that Anand will later be found not guilty and declared free. Therefore, judges should uphold the principle of presumption of innocence.

Buyung also reminded that a judge should uphold the enforcement of justice. Therefore a judge may not take sides in a court, not to the parties, the litigants, witnesses, the team’s attorney, the prosecutor, let alone to outsiders. “This judge is not brave enough to stand firm against complaints, protests, and opinions from outside,” said a former member of the Wantimpres (President’s Advisory Council)

• She failed to present the facts uncovered and legally disclosed in a close-session of court (supported by the voice recordings of the court session)
• She falsified the credentials and testimony of an expert witness on criminal law, Prof Dr H Dwidja Priyanto SH MH SpN, who was also Dean of Suryakancana University in Cianjur, to become Prof. Wija, a psychiatrist, who was never actually present and testified in the court.
• She failed to disclose the witness statement of the alleged victim, Tara Pradipta Laksmi, who stated that the alleged sexual assault occurred on 21 March 2009 in the city of Ciawi, when the defense lawyer had already presented the lawful evidence and indisputable alibi that on the same day and time, Anand Krishna was in fact in Jakarta where there was guest book and witnesses who could corroborate his presence.
• She failed to provide exact dates or times when the alleged sexual assaults occurred to the alleged victims. Mentioning only late June 2009, the end of May 2009, and early April 2009 – providing Anand Krishna with no opportunity to present an alibi. The only exact date provided was in respect of the alleged sexual assault of Shinta Kencana Kheng on 25 February 2010 however this offence was reported by to the Jakarta Police on 18 February 2010 – 7 days prior to the alleged offence.

The testimony of the prosecutions key witness, Tara, was incredible because she had been the subject of a 3 month, 45 session intensive hypnotherapy treatment by Dewi P Faeni alias Dewi Yogo Pratomo who had violated professional standards and code of practice which state that no more that 4-5 treatments should be given at any one time and that such treatments should not occur more than once a week. Link to letters confirming doubtful education credentials

According to Prof. LK Suryani PhD, founder of CASA (Committee Anti Sexual Abuse) & Chief of Psychiatric Laboratorium of Udayana University, and Adi W Gunawan – a leading expert in Mind Technology, conducting 45 hypnotherapy sessions to a patient would be considered an overdose and is not only unethical practice for a hypnotherapist but could also lead to brain washing or false memory implantation.

The trial of Anand Krishna could never have been impartial following the massive black campaign on national media between February and April 2010. Anand Krishna had already been subjected to “Trial by Press” before appearing in a court of law.

Facts uncovered during a closed-session of the court showed that there were several meetings between the prosecution’s witnesses prior the reports of Tara to National Woman Commission (12 Feb 2010) and Jakarta Police (15 Feb 2010). The meetings were set up and facilitated by Muhammad Djumaat Abrory Djabbar and his wife Dian Mayasari with the help of Shinta Kencana Kheng (a female witness who had a special relationship with the earlier judge).

According to the testimonies of the witnesses, Muhammad Djumaat Abrory Djabbar was also financing most of the witnesses to perform roadshows, including a group trip to Bali in March 2010 in order to urge the police to close down Anand Ashram Meditation Center, located in Kuta, Bali.

• The indictment failed to include the witness statement of the alleged victim, Tara Pradipta Laksmi, who had stated that the first alleged sexual assault occurred on 21 March 2009 in the city of Ciawi, whilst the defence had already presented Anand Krishna’s alibi such that on the same day and time, he was in fact in Jakarta where there was a guest book and witnesses who were able to collaborate his presence.
• The indictment failed to provide exact dates or times when the alleged sexual assaults occurred to the alleged victims. Mentioning only late June 2009, the end of May 2009, and early April 2009 – providing Anand Krishna with no opportunity to present an alibi. The only exact date provided was in respect of the alleged sexual assault of Shinta Kencana Kheng on 25 February 2010 however this offence was reported by to the Jakarta Police on 18 February 2010 – 7 days prior to the alleged offence.
• The indictment included the expert witness statements of Dr. Dewi P Faeni or Dr. Dewi Yogo Pratomo, MHt, and Ratih Puspitaningtias F, SH, MM, CHt even though it was evidenced during the trial that both witness were Tara Pradipta Laksmi (the alleged victim)’s own therapists. The witnesses were incredible under the Indonesia Criminal Court Procedural Law.
• The indictment asserted that Anand Krishna was giving Yoga classes/training to the alleged victim, Tara, and omitted key findings of the Trial including testimony from numerous witnesses (including the prosecutions own witnesses) whom testified that Anand Krishna was not providing such classes after 2005.
• The indictment failed to state that there are no witnesses to any of the alleged criminal acts.
• The indictment included falsified credentials and testimonies of expert witnesses Prof Dr H Dwidja Priyanto SH MH SpN, who was also Dean of Suryakancana University in Cianjur, to become Prof. Wija, a psychiatrist, who was never actually present and never testified in the court.

It should be noted that Martha Parulina Berliana has been involved with two other cases of questionable integrity where similar techniques were used to secure a conviction in the cases of Aan and Daniel Sinambela.

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/11/08/i-was-set-anand-krishna.html

His accusation stated that the panel of judges intentionally:

• Disregarded the evidence of sperm tissues (which never even existed in the list of evidences presented in either the police dossier, or the prosecutors indictment).The Fact was that the stories of sperm tissues had only been presented in the media. During the Trial the Panel of Judges actually digged this testimony but later found it to have no weight of truth.
• Disregarded the re-examination of expert witnesses from the public prosecutor.The fact was the prosecutor herself rejected the idea to re-present her own expert witnesses and her statement, as quoted by a prominent daily newspaper, The Jakarta Post, Aug 11 2011 Edition, was that “we don’t need to bring all the witnesses back since their testimonies would remain the same.”
• Accused the judges of being unduly influenced by Anand Krishna whilst they were sharing a vehicle during a journey to the alleged scenes of crime in Fatmawati-South Jakarta and Ciawi.
• The fact was that Anand Krishna and the judges were going from South Jakarta District Court, as demanded by the criminal court’s procedure, to the premises, in two separate and different cars. Anand was in the same car as his lawyers, and the judges were in a different car with the courts clerks and officers. Many witnesses in parking lot of South Jakarta District Court were able to verify this fact.

The appeal only quoted a part of the verdict of the lower court, intentionally misleading the reader, and introduced irrelevant case law as justification for the appeal (the case in question a registered case from the West Java District Court Registration Case No. No. 20/Pid/2006/PT. Bdg, dated on 21 April 2006,Page 9 to 13 and Page 91 and 92relating to a criminal trademark dispute.

Furthermore, according to Article 67 and 244 of Bill No 8/1981 of the Indonesia Criminal Code Procedure (KUHAP), an appeal of a not-guilty verdict cannot be brought to the Higher Court or the Supreme Court when the defendant has been freed of all charges and declared innocent by the lower court.

The reason cited as justifying the appeal is a 1983 Ministry of Justice decree (Surat Keputusan Menteri Kehakiman No. M.14-PW.07.03 Tahun 1983 tentang Tambahan Pedoman Pelaksanaan KUHAP) that allows for cases of special attentions, conditions and circumstances in the name of law, truth and justice to be brought into cassation in the Supreme Court.

Since then, the Indonesia Attorney General Office has adopted a policy to always make an appeal to higher court, or a file of cassation to the Supreme Court if they receive a verdict of not-guilty, or obtain a sentence less than two third of prison term requested in the indictment.

However it is important to note that a Ministerial Decree carries less legal weight than a formalized law such as the Criminal Code – to allow the lesser decree to take precedence over Articles 67 and 244 of Bill No 8/1981 of the Indonesian Criminal Code Procedure is a violation of the universally recognised legal principle of Lex superior derogat legi lex inferiori. Furthermore the supreme court jurisprudence arising out of the application of the 1983 decree is not included within The Source of Law & Hierarchy of Laws, according to the People’s Representative Assembly Decree (TAP MPR) No. III/2000.

In addition, the public statement of the Indonesian Attorney General, Basrief Arief, in consultation with People Representative Council (DPR) on July 18 2011, instructed his deputies NOT to appeal innocent verdicts, unless such verdicts related to corruption cases that inflicted the loss of state funds.

The verdict did not meet the requirements of Article 197 Sections 1 (d), 1 (f), 1 (h) and 1 (l) of Indonesian Criminal Code Procedure (KUHAP). Article 197 further states that unless a verdict complies with Section 1 in entirety it is null and void.

Specifically it failed to state:

the complete elements of the criminal charge;
the elements of the judges decision; and
the name of the prosecutor;

rendering it null and void.

Anand Krishna refused to comply with the unlawful verdict.

The verdict of the Supreme Court not only violates several parts of Bill No 8/1981 Indonesian Criminal Code (KUHAP), but also Bill No 39/1999 which ratifies the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and Article 28D (1) of the Indonesian Constitution of 1945 which states that every citizen has a right to equality, assurance, tranparency, justice in front of law and legal certainty.

All prosecutors and their agents present at the attempted arrest were served formal notice that the verdict did not comply with Article 197 Section 1 of the Indonesian Criminal Code and reminded that they would be personally liable for any harm or loss caused to Anand Krishna should they choose to execute a judgment which did not carry the force of law.

None of the prosecutors of their many agents were willing to identify themselves.

The six Prosecutors listed on the execution order as having authority to carry out the order were all present and each identified themselves. Everyone else who attended on behalf of the Prosecutors refused to identify themselves. Each of the Prosecutors were put on notice as to the null and void status of the verdict yet in full knowledge of the fact, proceeded to order the arrest which resulted in numerous acts of violence and injuries of innocent bystanders. The Banjar Leader (local council chief) arrived to stop the violence.

The Prosecutors presented arrest warrants for a number of the key supporters of Anand Krishna whose diligent representations to media and police representatives had assisted in foiling the arrest attempt 48 hours earlier, in order to silence the primary voices of truth and justice.

Anand Ashram were later informed that the Banjar Leader had intended to assist Anand Krishna in resisting the unlawful arrest, however he was unable to do so because the Prosecutors office had previously sent agents around each house in the village to spread misinformation that the peaceful events which they regularly witnessed at the Ashram were actually held for the purpose of sodomizing children. The Banjar Leader consequently received numerous complaints from local residents and was unable to act.