Jakarta. The Supreme Court (MA) rejected the judicial review filed by the eight convicts involved in the 2016 Vina and Eky murder case in Cirebon, West Java. This ruling, delivered on Monday, was met with deep disappointment from the convicts' families, who were seen crying in the courtroom.

The Supreme Court's decision closes the convicts' legal options, upholding the original verdict in a case that was adapted into the film Vina: Sebelum 7 Hari ("Vina: Before 7 Days"), which depicts the tragic events.

The judicial review was denied based on the Supreme Court's finding that there were no significant errors in the previous trial, either legally or factually. "There was no mistake by the judges in assessing the facts or law," said Yanto, a spokesperson for the Supreme Court, during a press conference.

Aminah, a family member, continued to believe in the convicts' innocence. "We are deeply disappointed," Aminah said. "We believe they are innocent and will leave the next steps to our legal counsel."

Jutek Bongso, the convicts' attorney, indicated that the defense team would thoroughly review the ruling and discuss the next legal actions with the convicts. "We will meet with the convicts and offer support before deciding on further steps," he said.

The case, which drew significant public attention, involved the murder of teenage girl Vina Dewi Arsita and her boyfriend, Muhammad Rizky Rudiana (Eky), in 2016. Eight individuals were initially convicted, with seven receiving life sentences and one, Saka Tatal, sentenced to eight years. Saka, who has already served part of his sentence, was released on parole but later sought a judicial review.

The defense team presented "new evidence" to argue that the victims died in a motorcycle accident, not as a result of murder. This included photos of the victims' bodies, which showed no signs of injuries from sharp weapons as claimed by prosecutors, as well as a video in which a key witness retracted their testimony.

However, prosecutors rejected the defense's new evidence, arguing that it was not fresh and had already been examined during previous hearings. The photos presented were not new, and the authenticity of social media evidence could not be verified.