Since the two rival parties were subject to such opposing fortunes, all eyes have turned to the contents of the verdict against Thai Rak Thai, particularly the five-year ban, which its heavyweights equate to "political execution".

Is the verdict solid?

Compared with the acquittal handed down by the now-defunct Constitution Court in the asset-concealment case of then newly elected premier Thaksin Shinawatra in 2001, this one is from another world.

The Thai Rak Thai verdict, which took almost five hours to read out, was both consistent and eloquent. It would be tough for anyone to question the legal principles employed by the judges regarding the alleged election rigging.

Nam Yimyaem, chairman of the Assets Examination Committee and a former Supreme Court vice president, said the decision included every angle to the investigation. It made the case easy for people to understand, he said.

Sombat Thamrongthanyawong, rector of the National Institute of Development Administration, said the judgement was transparent in all aspects. It was hard to challenge the tribunal's interpretation that pointed to the guilt of Thai Rak Thai and its executives, he said.

However, the weak point of the ruling was the punishment. The judges decided to apply a post-coup, military-dispensed law against an offence committed last year.

The absolute five-year ban is made possible by the post-coup law, raising the question of whether criminal justice principles - under which no law is supposed to target a particular group of people or applied retroactively - have been disregarded.

How did the tribunal explain this? Basically, it said this is not criminal justice and that non-criminal retroactive penalties are not uncommon.

The judges in effect said Thai Rak Thai had violated laws already on the books (the political parties and election acts), regardless of the post-coup legislation (announcement). The party, thus, was simply handed additional non-criminal punishment as a result of its "legitimate" crime.

Prinya Thevanarumitkul, a law lecturer at Thammasat University, said he was stunned by the harsh sentence. He compared it with criminal acts. The election fraud conducted by the two Thai Rak Thai executives amounted to "molestation", while an act to oust an elected government was like a "rape", he said.

The sentence of "execution", which means five years away from top-level politics, was too severe for Thai Rak Thai given the gravity of the charges, he said.

The controversy over the five-year ban was also reflected in the split decision of the nine justices.

Three of them did not think the prohibition should be imposed as it was promulgated only after the coup of September 19, 2006.

Panya Thanomrod, president of the tribunal and the Supreme Court, was one who opposed the punishment.

He argued that the post-coup law could not be enacted with retroactive effect under any circumstances. However, he could not resist the majority judges.