Limiting the Legality of Determining Suspects in Indonesia Pre-Trial System

IF 0.1 Q4 LAW
I. G. W. Suarda, Moch. Marsa Taufiqurrohman, Zaki Priambudi
{"title":"Limiting the Legality of Determining Suspects in Indonesia Pre-Trial System","authors":"I. G. W. Suarda, Moch. Marsa Taufiqurrohman, Zaki Priambudi","doi":"10.15742/ILREV.V11N2.691","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article aims to examine what the pre-trial judges consider in determining suspects. The basis of the reason \"not based on the provisions and legal procedures in force\" is a pre-trial petition. Including examining whether the Notification Letter for the Commencement of Investigation has not been submitted to the Reported Party and the Reporting Party, it can be used as a basis for the judge's consideration to judge the legality of the determination of the suspect. This article uses a legal research method through a statutory, conceptual, and case approach. This article finds that after the issuance of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 21 / PUU-XII / 2014 and the Supreme Court Regulation Number 4 of 2016, the fulfillment of preliminary evidence, namely that two valid pieces of evidence constitute the absolute standard of determining the suspect. Besides, in terms of proof, pre-trial only assesses the validity of formal aspects, which incidentally do not touch the case's subject matter. An application for the cancellation of a suspect's status, for whatever reason, cannot be granted as long as the initial evidence is not fulfilled, namely the two pieces of evidence listed in Article 184 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code (KUHAP). Ultimately, this study recommends the need for affirmation in determining a suspect through the Draft Criminal Procedure Code to achieve legal certainty and fulfillment of the suspect's human rights.","PeriodicalId":13484,"journal":{"name":"Indonesia Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indonesia Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15742/ILREV.V11N2.691","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article aims to examine what the pre-trial judges consider in determining suspects. The basis of the reason "not based on the provisions and legal procedures in force" is a pre-trial petition. Including examining whether the Notification Letter for the Commencement of Investigation has not been submitted to the Reported Party and the Reporting Party, it can be used as a basis for the judge's consideration to judge the legality of the determination of the suspect. This article uses a legal research method through a statutory, conceptual, and case approach. This article finds that after the issuance of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 21 / PUU-XII / 2014 and the Supreme Court Regulation Number 4 of 2016, the fulfillment of preliminary evidence, namely that two valid pieces of evidence constitute the absolute standard of determining the suspect. Besides, in terms of proof, pre-trial only assesses the validity of formal aspects, which incidentally do not touch the case's subject matter. An application for the cancellation of a suspect's status, for whatever reason, cannot be granted as long as the initial evidence is not fulfilled, namely the two pieces of evidence listed in Article 184 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code (KUHAP). Ultimately, this study recommends the need for affirmation in determining a suspect through the Draft Criminal Procedure Code to achieve legal certainty and fulfillment of the suspect's human rights.
论印尼审前制度中确定犯罪嫌疑人的合法性
本文旨在探讨审前法官在确定犯罪嫌疑人时所考虑的问题。“不以现行规定和法律程序为依据”的理由依据是审前请求书。包括审查《开始调查通知书》是否未提交报告方和报告方,可以作为法官判断认定犯罪嫌疑人合法性的考虑依据。本文采用法律研究方法,通过成文法,概念和案例的方法。本文认为,宪法法院第21 / PUU-XII / 2014号判决书和大法院2016年第4号条例颁布后,初步证据的履行,即两项有效证据构成认定犯罪嫌疑人的绝对标准。此外,在证据方面,预审只评估形式方面的有效性,而不涉及案件的主题。只要最初的证据,即《刑法》第184条第(1)款所列的两项证据没有得到证实,无论出于何种原因,都不能批准取消嫌疑人地位的申请。最后,本研究建议通过刑事诉讼法草案确定犯罪嫌疑人需要确认,以实现法律确定性和犯罪嫌疑人人权的实现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
14 weeks
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信