On the basis of the above I retract my earlier comment. Given the case allegedly 'has more holes than a wire netting canoe' don't we have an independant international court for some type of appeal process or is that being a tad idealistic?
Are the holes in the case something that can be proven to be legally inadequate such as evidence continuity or are we talking about what conversation Corby or a customs officer allegedly had?
If a large part of the prosecution case hinged on the latter then we will probably never know the truth unless it was all tape recorded.
It surely would be nice to know what a scientific analysis would indicate about the origin of the drugs and depending on whose version of events you want to believe who knows why this was never allegedly done.
Unfortunately there is no international court where appeals on individual cases from domestic jurisdictions can be heard. There is the International Criminal Court (ICC) that deals with crimes such as those against humanity and war crimes. It is a concept that is frequently discussed amongst human rights and legal groups, but it is not likely something that will eventuate in the near future. One issue in the way is the fact that countries have sovereignty and to have such a court would undermine that concept. Another is simply the practicality - everyone who thought they had been unfairly done by would want to appeal and it would be impossible.
The legal issue with the holes in the case is that they amount to very clear reasonable doubt; one could argue they go beyond even reasonable doubt to substantial doubt. In addition, the fact that a conviction occurs in spite of these goes to the heart of the concept of innocent until proven guilty; it demonstrates that it was a case of guilty until proven innocent. By Indonesia's own legislation (the criminal code - KUHAP), innocent until proven guilty is the mandatory foundation and all cases must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. By international standards (under the ICCPR), these exist as well. That is where the legal significance in the holes lies. Nearly every lawyer I have spoken to (and I have spoken to a LOT) - and in my own studies (of law) - agrees that there was clearly reasonable doubt, as it is understood legally.
There is also the separate legal issue of the fact that no evidence was presented to demonstrate trafficking, as opposed to mere importing. The individual who drafted this legislation gave a clear explanation of what was required for trafficking and stated that, on what was presented in Schapelle's case, she should NOT have been found guilty of trafficking. I genuinely do not know of a more reliable person to confirm that.
Indonesian law requires that there are two pieces of evidence to support a conviction. The first was that the drugs were found in Schapelle's bag, which was indisputable. The second was the testimony of the customs officer saying that Schapelle claimed ownership of the drugs, which she disputed. Now, on a basic level that makes it her word against his. But there were a number of other reasons why his testimony should not have been accepted. The first is that he didn't speak English well enough even to carry on a rudimentary conversation. He struggled with understanding "how are you?". The second is that his version of events was supported by another customs supervisor who didn't even witness the conversation. Further, from a legal perspective, Schapelle should never have been questioned outside the presence of an interpreter and any such questioning had to be disregarded. This is also provided for under KUHAP. So the testimony of the customs officer was shaky at best.
And this was the entire spectrum of the prosecution's evidence. They actually had nothing else. They didn't test the marijuana for its origin or for DNA evidence connecting it to Schapelle; they didn't fingerprint the bags; they didn't call up anyone to support Schapelle being a drug importer or trafficker; they didn't weigh the luggage collectively to get a comparison. Indeed, despite requests from the defence, this was all refused. So Schapelle was convicted on the basis of very tenuous testimony from a customs officer.
Meanwhile, the defence presented a substantial amount of other evidence to demonstrate reasonable doubt. There was evidence by John Ford about overhearing two guys discuss the fact that someone else's drugs had ended up in Schapelle's bag; evidence by QANTAS and airport personnel that there was no way she could have gotten that bag through with the drugs already in it; evidence that baggage handlers are used to smuggle drugs; evidence from friends who had seen her pack the bag; and evidence that the Corbys were not involved in drug supply and never had been.
That is all very, very clear reasonable doubt. In addition, the head judge publically said that Corby would have to prove the drugs weren't hers and what had happened in order to be found not guilty. This is in direct contradiction to what the legal system that he presides over requires.