It has been widely reported in the media that the District Court judges involved in Schapelle's case will urge the Indonesian Supreme court to reject her request for a judicial review. While Schapelle, her family and lawyers wait anxiously to see exactly what the Supreme Court Judges will do, her thousands of loyal supporters across the world continue to hope that justice will prevail.

Clearly there are grounds for a judicial review, despite the District court Judges claims to the contrary.

"Many hope that the Supreme Court Judges will consider the evidence presented to them and that it will be enough to re-open Schapelle's case so that justice can be done" says Kay Danes, International Human Rights Advocate.

Over the last twelve months, hundreds of Schapelle Supporters have written to her lawyers in Indonesia, bringing to their attention, a number of crucial observations, in the hope it will add weight to a judicial review. Some of the more notable points are listed below.

Note: This information is based purely on the observations made by Schapelle Supporters. It is not to be taken in any way, shape or form, or even in part, as a representation of what Schapelle's Legal Defence may or may not submit as evidence to the Supreme Court.

During the preliminary investigation of Schapelle:

• No lawyer was present
• No interpreter was present
• Schapelle was in no condition to be interrogated.
• Neither an audio nor a visual recording was made of the preliminary investigation.
• The Australian Consulate was not notified until very late.
• Neither audio nor visual recordings were made of the initial discovery of the drugs at the customs counter
• The X-ray machine was not equipped to take photographs - so no image was available to show the location of the marijuana in the boogie board bag before it got to customs.
• The outer plastic bag is handled by many people without protective gloves before the bag can be tested for fingerprints.
• The drugs were never tested for quality or origin (obviously these tests could not be conducted immediately but there was no reason why the tests could not be conducted at all)
• The total weight of the baggage is not compared with the total weight checked in at Brisbane airport.
• The English-language proficiency of Winata, and the other airport witnesses who testified for the prosecution, was challenged at least twice in court but never tested.
• The value of Australian marijuana in Bali was never proved - it was always reckless speculation by everybody concerned.
• The existence of Australian marijuana on the streets of Bali was never proved.
• The influence of public opinion and prejudice on the judges' decision.
• The destruction of the evidence before all legal appeals had been exhausted.

There are precedents in Indonesia where samples of drugs have been preserved before the bulk was destroyed. Why didn't the authorities preserve a sample from Schapelle's case?

There have been several clear breaches of the Indonesian Code of Criminal Procedure (KUHAP). Some of which are listed below:

Articles 54 and 56 (1) - The right to legal aid lasts throughout the whole proceedings whenever the defendant is interrogated, from the beginning of the preliminary examination by the police interrogator to the trial, and at every stage. Schapelle did not have legal counsel at the preliminary interrogation at Denpasar airport.

Article 53 - Extends the right outlined in Article 177 (1) to the preliminary examination. Schapelle did not have an interpreter at the preliminary interrogation. She was interrogated by airline staff whose English-language proficiency has never been established and she does not understand Indonesian. For example, when Winata was interviewed by Liz Hayes on 60 Minutes in November 2004, her questions to Winata were translated into Indonesian and Winata's responses were in Indonesian and translated by an interpreter into English. Would this be necessary if Winata had good English speaking skills and good English listening skills?

Article 51 - The suspect or defendant has the right to be clearly informed in a language he understands about what has been presumed about him at the start of an examination or the charges brought against him: a formulation which already implies the right to the assistance of an interpreter. (see Article 53, above)

Articles 52 and 153 (2) - When the suspect is interrogated he must be in the condition to speak freely without pressure being brought to bear upon him by anyone and in any form.

Schapelle was interrogated for nine hours - after 12 hours of travel. The drive to Brisbane Airport began at 4.30am, so Schapelle must have awakened around 3.30 am to prepare for the drive to the airport. How much sleep did she have that night? How long had she been awake by the time the preliminary interrogation started? She must have been suffering from travel fatigue, a recognized medical condition, and would have been in no condition to be interrogated, especially without the assistance of a lawyer and interpreter.

Articles 69 and 70 (1) - If the suspect has been arrested or detained, the legal adviser in turn has the right to be present and to speak with his client whenever he is being questioned, from the moment of arrest or detention and at all stages of the proceedings.

Schapelle's access to a lawyer appears to have been hampered or denied for many hours. If "prima facie" evidence is all that the Indonesian justice needs to convict a suspect, why did the airport authorities interrogate Schapelle for so long before allowing her to contact a lawyer?

Article 66 - The suspect or defendant shall not be burdened with the duty of providing evidence.

Article 8 - Presumption of innocence.

The defence were in error when they stated "The only way to get her out is to prove she didn't do it." And the police, prosecution and judges appear to have conformed to this assumption, even though it does not comply with Indonesian law.

Breaches of The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR):

Article 14 (2) - Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

Clearly Schapelle was branded guilty in a very public way and several comments made by the Judges prior to her conviction support that there were obvious breaches to Article 14 (2).

Breaches of Indonesian Human Rights Law:

Article 18 - Every person who is arrested, detained, charged or brought before a court has the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

As above.

Schapelle supporters also highlight the facts whereby the Indonesian Chief of Police admitted:

• The case was not properly completed and only 50 % of the necessary work was carried out
• The prosecution case has many gaps and weaknesses
• The prosecution case was only half there because Indonesian Police have never done any fingerprinting. No fingerprinting was ever conducted on the drugs or on the boogie board bag.
• The unlocked boogie-board bag had been contaminated by the number of people who handled it before it reached police headquarters.
• The lack of video footage of the arrest at the airport was the prosecution's main shortcoming.