Effectiveness of
Merging Compensation Claims in Criminal Cases: A Case Study of Decision Number
196/Pid.Sus/2021/PN. Jkt.Utr.
Lonna Yohanes Lengkong1,
Tomson Situmeang2*, Andree Washington3
Universitas Kristen Indonesia, East
Jakarta, DKI Jakarta, Indonesia1,2,3
Email: [email protected]1, [email protected]2*,
[email protected]3
|
|
ABSTRACT |
|
|
Code of Criminal Procedure,
Victims of Crime, Indemnity, Claims For Damages. |
|
This study investigates the Efficiency of
Combining Compensation Claims in Criminal Cases, focusing on Decision Number
196/Pid.Sus/2021/PN. Jkt.Utr.
Crime victims' rights are addressed by Law Number 8 of 1981, specifically in
Articles 98 to 101 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (KUHAP), while
compensation in Civil Law is governed by Article 1365 of the Civil Code.
However, seeking compensation through civil law procedures can be
time-consuming. A normative juridical approach was employed, utilizing
statutory analysis and a case study method. Primary, secondary, and tertiary
legal materials provided secondary data. The analysis, framed by justice
theory and legal certainty theory, reveals that merging compensation lawsuits
with criminal cases under Article 98 of the Criminal Procedure Code can
expedite resolution. Prerequisites for consolidation include alignment of
defendant actions with charges, resulting losses, and a request from the
aggrieved party to the Judge. This study underscores the potential of combining
cases to streamline compensation claims, offering implications for enhancing
victims' access to justice within the legal system. |
|
|
||
|
|
|
INTRODUCTION
Based on data from
the National Criminal Information Center, Criminal
Investigation Agency, and Indonesian National Police, the crime rate in
Indonesia in 2022 increased by 16.36% (sixteen point three six per cent) from
the previous year. In 2022, the Indonesian National Police took action on
311,523 cases; in 2021, there were 267,716 cases. The reality of the occurring
crime is still considered quite worrying and detrimental to society. The crime
of crime is very harmful to the victim, both materially and psychologically.
Therefore, victims' rights need attention from all parties, both the government
and the community, including the perpetrators
Law Number 8 of
1981, about the Code of Criminal Procedure (KUHAP), has established provisions
for safeguarding the rights of victims of crimes
Certainly, within
the realm of civil law, the safeguarding of victims' rights is possible through
Article 1365 of the Civil Code (KUHPercivil). This
particular legal provision addresses protecting victims' rights by initiating a
compensation claim against the wrongdoer for their unlawful actions.
Nonetheless, pursuing legal action under Article 1365 of the Civil Code
necessitates awaiting the final and conclusive judgment of the criminal case, a
process known to entail a considerable duration. Therefore, it is necessary to
conduct further research studies on compensation claims for victims of criminal
acts from a criminal law perspective. One example of an interesting case that
has used the legal institution of combining compensation claims in non-criminal
instances is the online gold fraud committed by Drelia
Wangsih
This research
focuses on legal issues related to compensation for victims of crime from a
criminal law perspective. The research inquiries concentrate on (1) Exploring
the criminal procedural law concept concerning the amalgamation of compensation
claims in criminal cases as per Indonesian legal principles and (2) Assessing
the efficiency of implementing the consolidation of compensation claims in
criminal cases, illustrated by the instance of Decision Number 169/Pid.Sus/2021/PN. Jkt.Utr.
The employed
research methodology is normative legal research, employing both a statutory
approach (statute approach) and a case approach (case approach) to evaluate the
practical effectiveness of consolidating compensation claims in criminal cases
Studying the
intersection of justice and legal certainty within criminal procedural law,
particularly concerning the amalgamation of compensation claims under
Indonesian law, is a focal point of this research. The study draws upon the
theories of justice by Aristotle and legal certainty by Jan M. Otto to
underscore the importance of adherence to clear and consistent regulations in
establishing justice and legal certainty within a society. Aristotle's theory
emphasizes the significance of adhering to the law to promote societal
well-being and harmony, asserting that justice arises when laws are crafted and
enforced to ensure the happiness of individuals and the broader community.
Moreover, as
elucidated by Jan M. Otto, legal certainty is crucial for the stability and
functionality of the legal system. It requires clear and consistent regulations
that are easily accessible to the public, applied consistently by the
government, accepted by the majority of citizens, ensures judicial independence,
and lead to concrete implementation of judicial decisions
The research addresses
gaps in understanding regarding the formal regulation and practical efficacy of
the merger of compensation claims within the Indonesian judicial system. The
study seeks to provide insights into the regulatory framework concerning
compensation claims and evaluate their application in judicial proceedings by analyzing existing literature on justice, legal certainty,
and criminal procedural law. Ultimately, this research seeks to contribute to a
more nuanced understanding of how justice and legal certainty intersect with
criminal procedural law, with implications for legal practice and societal
harmony.
In focusing on
criminal procedural law related to the merger of compensation claims within
Indonesian law, the study addresses two fundamental questions: how the concept
is formally regulated and how effectively it is applied in court practice. By
delving into these questions, the research provides concrete answers that can
enhance understanding and improve the functioning of the judicial system in
Indonesia.
METHODS
The research
employs normative legal methodology, utilizing statutory and case approaches.
Qualitative data analysis uses secondary data from primary, secondary, and
tertiary legal sources
RESULTS
Merger of Claims
for Damages in Criminal Cases
The matter of compensation falls under the
jurisdiction of civil law, making civil courts and Civil Judges responsible for
adjudicating compensation claims. In contrast, criminal issues are governed by
the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). The procedure for merging under this Code
simultaneously undergoes two examination processes. The first is criminal
proceedings. The second is civil proceedings to examine compensation. The
approval of the plaintiff's compensation claim against the defendant in a civil
case, combined with a criminal case, follows the receipt of the compensation
application by the Judge. This approval is by Article 99 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, which is linked to Article 89 of the same code. These
articles pertain to the authority to adjudicate the lawsuit, the validity of
the lawsuit's basis, and the imposition of penalties instead of the costs borne
by the injured party. However, suppose the District Court asserts its lack of
jurisdiction, deeming the lawsuit inadmissible. In that case, the Judge's
decision will solely address the imposition of penalties on the defendant for
the costs incurred by the plaintiff.
The word restitution in the dictionary means
repayment, indemnity, or submission of the remaining payment portion. While in
criminal law, restitution is a payment of compensation that shows an
understanding of the suffering of the victim of a criminal act, compensation
must be paid to the victim or the victim's heirs. The meaning of Restitution as
outlined in Article 1 number 11 of the Republic of Indonesia Law Number 31 of
2014 on Amendments to Law Number 13 of 2006 regarding the Protection of
Witnesses and Victims can be summarized as follows: "Restitution refers to
the compensation provided to victims or their families by offenders or other
parties."
In the Indemnity
System described in the book "Compensation Of The Victim Of Crime,"
"In a wide variety of societies throughout history, restitution has been a
central principle of criminal law," This concept is further elaborated in
a guidebook for the enforcement of Law Number 8 of 1981, which categorizes the
compensation system into five distinct types:
1.
Compensation, classified under civil proceedings, is applicable within
the realm of civil procedures. This legal avenue allows victims to seek redress
for all forms of losses, both tangible and intangible, incurred. Victims of
criminal acts can leverage civil procedures to seek compensation for their
damages. However, a notable drawback of this civil process is that it may deter
plaintiffs due to the prolonged resolution period, leading to increased time
and expenses.
2.
Civil indemnity is integrated into criminal procedures, enabling
victims to initiate criminal charges while also seeking compensation for the
offenses committed by criminals. In this criminal procedure, victims are not
required to file a compensation claim separately; instead, the cases are
consolidated. This integration ensures that the compensation claim is
simultaneously scrutinized and adjudicated alongside the criminal case,
resulting in time and cost savings.
3.
Civil damages are interlinked with criminal aspects and are addressed
within criminal procedures. Within this framework, the court determines
compensation in the form of Criminal Substitutes, as exemplified in cases such
as corruption. Compensation is awarded to victims without a separate
prosecution, where the court oversees the payment of damages to the affected
parties.
4.
Civil damages, as per criminal procedure, are the responsibility of the
State, with the State having the authority to reimburse the convicted
individual.
5.
Compensation in Switzerland is impartial and is administered within the
framework of criminal procedures. This particular system solely encompasses
criminal procedures, omitting both civil and criminal proceedings. The
rationale behind this approach lies in the vulnerable status of the victim, who
is typically facing significant hardships. Simultaneously, the offender is also
considered a person in need, prompting the State to assume responsibility by
alleviating the convict's burden through compensation.
In accordance with the stipulations outlined
in Article 4 of Supreme Court Regulation Number 1 of 2022 regarding Procedures
for Resolving Applications and Granting Restitution and Compensation to Victims
of Criminal Acts, the restitution forms available to victims of criminal acts
encompass indemnity for loss of wealth or income;
1.
Compensation for financial and income losses;
2.
Restitution covering both tangible and intangible damages resulting
from direct affliction due to the criminal act;
3.
Refund of expenses related to medical and psychological treatments or
4.
Compensation for other adversities endured by the victim as a
consequence of the crime, such as essential transportation expenses, legal
fees, or additional costs associated with legal proceedings.
Indemnity within the realm of criminal law
involves a responsibility imposed on an individual who has engaged in unlawful
actions resulting in harm to others due to their guilt. Many criminal cases
also encompass civil components, holding the perpetrator accountable for civil
compensation. Articles 98 to 101 of the Code of Criminal Procedure address this
phenomenon as the Merger of Claims for Compensation for Criminal Acts. The
amalgamation of compensation lawsuits occurs when cases involve both civil and
criminal aspects, necessitating simultaneous resolution. Prior to the
implementation of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court's resolution of
such cases was sequential, with the criminal aspect addressed first, followed
by the settlement of the compensation claim (civil case).
The definition of
Merger in the Merger of Compensation Claims, namely Merger, is the combination
of cases that should be within the scope of a criminal act and punished by
criminal penalties but are considered to contain civil elements that can be
held accountable to perpetrators of criminal acts to achieve justice in the
Indonesian justice system. The merger, in this case, is intended to combine
claims for damages for embezzlement crimes that should be in different legal
environments.
The definition of
a compensation claim is a combination of compensation cases, not claims for
compensation due to arrest, detention, prosecution, or trial that are not based
on law but are claims for compensation arising from the criminal act itself.
The compensation
claim is made so that it is submitted to the public prosecutor and combined
with the criminal embezzlement charge. If the public prosecutor is unavailable,
the compensation claim may be presented to the judge before a verdict is
delivered, as outlined in Article 98, paragraph (2) of the Criminal Procedure
Code. The provision specifies that the request mentioned in paragraph (1) must
be made no later than before the public prosecutor files a criminal charge.
However, if the public prosecutor is absent, the request should be submitted by
the judge before the judge issues a verdict.
Scope of Merger of
Claims for Compensation in Criminal Cases
In criminal law,
the extent of indemnification is more limited compared to civil law. The
breadth of indemnity under civil law surpasses that of criminal law, as it aims
to restore the plaintiff to the state they were in before the defendant's
actions caused harm. In civil law, there is no set minimum or maximum limit for
damages, encompassing both tangible and intangible losses. Real losses involve
quantifiable monetary calculations, while intangible or moral losses are those
that cannot be precisely evaluated in financial terms.
The legal
foundation for compensating the damages resulting from the defendant's actions
is established in Article 98 Paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. This
article stipulates that if an act forming the basis of a criminal case in a
District Court inflicts harm on another individual, the presiding judge, upon
the request of that person, has the authority to consolidate the compensation
case with the criminal proceedings. The victim has initiated a compensation
claim against the accused, highlighting the fact that illegal acts result in
victims experiencing various forms of loss.
Article 98 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure outlines the conditions for merging these cases,
requiring three essential criteria, as evident from the provision's
formulation.
1. The presence of
the defendant's conduct;
2. The requirement
that the defendant's conduct, as the initial condition, results in harm to
others;
3. A petition from
the injured party is necessary to the Court for the consolidation of
compensation cases.
4. The actions
perpetrated by the accused are criminal.
Purpose and
Purpose of Combining Claims for Compensation in Criminal Cases
The purpose and purpose of combining
compensation cases with criminal case examinations as, according to the
explanation of the provisions of Article 98 Paragraph (1) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, "the purpose of merging lawsuit cases in this criminal
case is so that the lawsuit case at the same time is examined and decided at
the same time with the criminal case concerned, which is meant by "loss of
others" including losses to the victim." The main objectives of this
merger include:
1.
To simplify the process of examining and filing the claim for
compensation itself so that the meaning contained in the principle of simple,
fast, and light cost justice can be achieved.
2.
So that as soon as possible, the aggrieved person gets compensation
without going through the usual civil lawsuit process and is not required to
wait for a new criminal verdict to file a claim for compensation through an
ordinary civil lawsuit. Thus, the incorporation of claims for damages is a
shortcut that the injured person can use to get compensation payments as
quickly as possible.
3.
The cost of the lawsuit does not exist.
In Circular No. 2 of 2014, issued by the Supreme Court of the Republic
regarding Case Resolution at the Trial and Appellate Levels within 4 Judicial
Environments (SEMA No. 2 of 2014), it is emphasized that the resolution of
cases at the Trial level must be finalized within a maximum period of 5 (five)
months. SEMA No. 2 of 2014 explicitly sets a time limit of 5 (five) months for
the entire process, from the initial hearing to the verdict, for both civil and
criminal cases. Considering Article 98 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which
permits the integration of compensation claims related to criminal acts within
the examination of the criminal case, there is no need for a separate legal
proceeding, thereby streamlining the case resolution process to a minimum of 5
(five) months, encompassing the period from the initial hearing to the verdict.
This incorporation of compensation claims in accordance with the Criminal
Procedure Code proves advantageous for crime victims seeking compensation
resulting from the actions of the Defendant, as it is integrated into the
overall case examination and criminal proceedings.
Thus, in terms of time to resolve cases, the merger of these loss
claims is relatively fast because they are examined together with the main
criminal case. This is under the principles of criminal procedural law, namely
fast, simple, and low-cost trials.
Mechanism for
Merging Claims for Compensation in Criminal Cases
The consolidation of compensation claims in
criminal cases is conducted in accordance with the stipulations outlined in
Article 98, Article 99, Article 101, and Article 274 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, as follows:
1.
Article 98:
(1)
"Should an action that serves as the foundation for an accusation
in a criminal trial before the District Court result in harm to another
individual, the Presiding Judge of the session has the authority, upon the
request of the affected person, to opt for the integration of the damages claim
into the ongoing criminal proceedings;
(2)
The request mentioned in paragraph (1) is only admissible before the
public prosecutor initiating criminal charges. In the absence of the public
prosecutor, the request must be presented before the judge issues a verdict."
2.
Article 99:
(1) "If the
aggrieved party requests a merger of his lawsuit into a criminal case referred
to in article 98, the District Court considers its authority to adjudicate the
suit, about the truth of the basis of the lawsuit and the penalty for
reimbursement of costs incurred by the aggrieved party;
(2) Except if the
district court declares that it is not authorized to adjudicate the claim as
referred to in paragraph (1) or the claim is declared inadmissible, the judge's
decision only determines the penalty for reimbursement of costs that the
injured party has incurred;
(3) The judgment on
compensation itself has permanent force if the criminal judgment also gets
permanent legal force."
3.
Article 101:
"The
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to claims for damages
insofar as this law is not provided otherwise;"
4.
Article 274:
"If
the court also imposes an award on damages as referred to in article 99, the
execution shall be carried out according to the procedure of the civil
judgment;"
The process of
merging claims for compensation in criminal cases in Decision Number
196/Pid.Sus/2021/PN. Jkt.Utr.
The merging of
compensation claims in criminal cases has been substantiated through the Drelia Wangsih case, involving 40
victims who suffered a collective loss of around 6 billion rupiah. This
criminal incident, centered on fraud and money
laundering, was officially addressed in the North Jakarta District Court's
Decision Number 196/Pid.Sus/2021/PN.Jkt.Utr.
on July 8, 2021, in conjunction with the DKI Jakarta High Court's Decision
Number 205/PID.SUS/2021/PT.DKI. on September 14, 2021.
To compensate the
victims, the procedure for merging compensation claims in the DRELIA WANGSIH
case is submitted by:
1.
Filing an
Application for Incorporation of Indemnity Claims
The request for
the consolidation of compensation claims was submitted during Criminal Case
No.: 196/Pid.Sus/2021/PN.Jkt.Utr,
prior to the Public Prosecutor presenting charges in the court proceedings.
This action was carried out in accordance with Article 98 of Law No. 8 of 1981
on the Code of Criminal Procedure, supported by a letter dated June 16, 2021,
with the subject: Application for the Merger of Compensation Claims. The letter
was addressed to the esteemed Panel of Judges overseeing Criminal Case No.:
196/Pid.Sus/2021/PN.Jkt.Utr.,
which essentially pleaded that the Defendant be punished to pay compensation to
the Victims in the amount of their respective losses, with the evidence seized
from the Defendants being handed over to the Victims to pay the damages
suffered by the Victims.
This application
for Merger of Compensation Claims in the Drelia Wangsih Case was filed at the time of Case Number 196/Pid.Sus/2021/PN. Jkt.Utr., this
is still in the stage of examining
witnesses, so it does not violate the provisions of Article 98 of Law
No. 8 of 1981 concerning the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2.
Defendant's
Response to the Request for Incorporation of Damages Claim
As is common in
courts, every request contains a Response. In the case of Drelia
Wangsih (Defendant), responding to the Victims'
application with a Letter dated June 23, 2023, Regarding the response to the
application for merging cases by the victims in special criminal case No.
196/PID. SIS/2021/PN. JKT. UTR. It rejected the Victims' application because
the merger of compensation claims was irrelevant. It should have used the
instrument of Law Number 13 of 2006 concerning the Witness and Victim
Protection Agency jo. PP Number 44 of 2008 concerning the Provision of Restitutsi Compensation and Assistance to Witnesses and
Victims as lex specialize de rogate lege generali.
3.
Public
Prosecutor's Response to the Request for Merger of Claims for Damages
In the case of Drelia Wangsih, the Public
Prosecutor gave his Response, which, in essence, conveyed the following:
a. The accused faced
charges under Article 3 of Law Number 8 of 2010, which pertains to the
Prevention and Eradication of Money Laundering.
b. According to the
elucidation of Law Number 8 of 2010 on the Prevention and Eradication of Money
Laundering, the second paragraph emphasizes, "In the anti-money laundering
efforts, the identification of perpetrators and assets involved in criminal activities
can be achieved through tracing, allowing the proceeds of the crime to be
subsequently seized for the state or returned to the rightful owner."
c. The case above
involves the confiscation of assets belonging to the defendant, whether
directly owned or under the control of a third party.
d. In this trial,
scrutiny will be applied to these items to establish whether they genuinely
stem from a criminal act committed by the defendant. Further elaboration on
this matter will be provided in our formal complaint.
e. According to the Public Prosecution later as executors do not have the
authority to count or divide the seized goods equally if they are later handed
over to the victim witness, so we suggest to the petitioners, in this case, to
be able to form an association confirmed by notarial deed to manage these items
and reduce the risk of future problems.
And in Claim
No.Reg.Case: PDM-27/Eku.2/JKT-UTR/02/2021 states that the confiscated goods in
the case were returned to the victim to compensate for the losses suffered by
the victims.
The process of
executing the decision on the claim for compensation in criminal cases in
Decision Number 196/Pid.Sus/2021/PN. Jkt.Utr.
The Execution Process in the Drelia Wangsih
Case is generally the same as the Civil Execution Process. However, what is
different is that you have to coordinate with the North Jakarta District
Attorney's Office. The stages of execution in the Drelia Wangsih Case are as
follows:
1. Request for Execution
The Execution Application was filed with an
Official Letter from the Applicant addressed to the Chief Justice of the
District Court, in the Case of Drelia Wangsih, addressed to the Chief Justice of the North
Jakarta District Court.
2. Pay the Execution Fee
After the Execution Request is received, the
Execution Fee will be submitted. In the case of Drelia
Wangsih, the teaching fees are:
a. Charge the
execution fee of Tegoran/Aanmaning;
b. Assess the cost of
confiscating the execution of the object;
c. Panjar Costs of
Confiscation of Delegation Execution (Cibinong District Court);
d. This Delegation
Fee exists if the Object of Execution is outside the jurisdiction of the Court.
In the case of Drelia Wangsih
there is one Execution Object located in the Bogor Regency area, therefore it
is necessary to assist with the Delegation to the Cibinong District Court;
e. Panjar Execution Auction
Fees.
3. Tegoran/Aanmaning
Tegoran/Aanmaning is a Scrratch from the
Chief Justice to the Execution Respondent to be able to carry out the judgment
that has the force of law remaining voluntarily. Following the Provisions of
the Law, Aanmaning was carried out 2 (two) times to allow
the Execution Respondent to carry out the contents of the Judgment voluntarily.
4. Execution of Confiscation of the Defendant's Execution Object in Civil
If, after the execution of the Execution Respondent
(Defendant), there is no settlement or payment of compensation made by the
Execution Respondent (Defendant) voluntarily, then the Execution Seizure will
be carried out. The implementation of the Sita in the Drelia
Wangsih case was carried out three times because the
seized objects were quiet a lot and the time for the seizure was determined by
the Chairman of the North Jakarta District Court through a Determination
because it was related to the bailiff (who represented the Clerk) and witnesses
from the Court. The implementation of the Sita is in the form of:
a. The defendant's
goods, Drelia Wangsih, were
seized at the North Jakarta District Attorney's Office, where the items were
confiscated at the Prosecutor's Evidence Warehouse. The items in question are
Luxury goods, cash, and vehicles seized during criminal proceedings.
b. Implementation of
Sita In the jurisdiction of the North Jakarta District Court, namely the
defendant's house in Cilincing.
c. The seizure was
implemented under the jurisdiction of the Cibinong District Court, namely the
defendant's house in Jonggol, Bogor Regency.
5. Real Cash Execution
In the case of Drelia Wangsih, the Real Execution of the seized Cash takes
precedence because this Object of Execution does not need to be assessed, so
the first Object is given to the Execution Applicant.
6. Assessment of Execution Objects
Before the execution objects are auctioned, an
assessment of the execution objects is first carried out. In conducting an
Assessment of the object of execution, an Assessment is required through an
Institution certified to teach the Assessment. In this case, the Applicant
submits an Application for the Appointment of the Public Assessment Service
Office (KJPP) to the Chairman of the North Jakarta District Court, where later
the Chief Justice will appoint the KJPP by issuing a KJPP Appointment
Determination to assess the Objects of Execution. After the Court sets the KJPP,
the Applicant directly coordinates with the KJPP to conduct the Assessment of
the Objects of Execution. All costs required by KJPP are the Applicant's
responsibility and are paid directly to the KJPP, not through the Court or the
Prosecutor's Office. After the KJPP conducts an Assessment and the price for
the Execution Objects has been issued, the price of the Execution Objects is
given to the Applicant and the North Jakarta District Court so that the Auction
registration is carried out at the State Wealth and Auction Service Office
(KPKNL).
7. Registration with the State Wealth and Auction Service Office
The Court carries out auction registration to the
State Wealth and Auction Service Office (KPKNL). In the case of Drelia Wangsih, the courts that
registered with the KPKNL were the North Jakarta District Court and the
Cibinong District Court. The requirements for auction registration to KPKNL
are:
a.
Copy of the Court Decision that has permanent legal force (inkracht van gewijsde);
b.
a copy of the execution assignment;
c.
Copy of Sita's Minutes;
d.
a copy of the auction determination;
e.
Copy of notification letter to interested parties;
f.
A large breakdown of the amount of the Execution Respondent's bills;
g.
Detailed Assessment Results of Auction objects;
h.
Proof of ownership (certificate) of the item/object of the auction;
i.
Auction Terms;
j.
Proof of Auction Announcement;
CONCLUSION
The study's
findings demonstrate that compensation falls within the purview of civil law,
requiring scrutiny by civil courts and judges, while the Criminal Procedure
Code governs criminal matters. However, Article 98 of the Criminal Procedure
Code allows for incorporating compensation claims into criminal cases, bridging
the gap between civil and criminal law, previously unaddressed by the Code.
This inclusion occurs at the behest of the aggrieved party and necessitates
three conditions: alignment of the defendant's actions with the charges,
resulting losses, and a request from the aggrieved party to the Judge. The
amalgamation of cases involves concurrent criminal and civil proceedings to
evaluate compensation. After a comprehensive review of merged compensation
cases, several recommendations emerge. To balance the rights of the accused and
the victim, it's suggested that the Criminal Procedure Code refrain from
enforcing Article 100, Paragraph (2). Furthermore, regardless of whether the
defendant has received a criminal or civil verdict, the victim's right to
appeal or seek cassation should be respected, mirroring the procedure of a pure
civil lawsuit. The decision on granting an appeal or cassation from the victim
should rest with a higher court, provided that the criminal case is not
implicated.
REFERENCES
Arief, H.
(2018). Domestic violence and victim rights in Indonesian law concerning the
elimination of domestic violence. J. Legal Ethical & Regul. Isses, 21, 1.
Ashworth, A. (2019). Victims’
rights, defendants’ rights and criminal procedure. In Integrating a victim
perspective within criminal justice (pp. 185–204). Routledge.
Atmadja, I. D.
G., & Wirawan, K. A. (2023). Legal Principles in
Legal System. International Conference on “Changing of Law: Business Law,
Local Wisdom and Tourism Industry”(ICCLB 2023), 583–590.
Bazelon, L., & Green, B. A.
(2019). Victims’ Rights from a Restorative Perspective. Ohio St. J. Crim.
L., 17, 293.
Burke, R. H. (2018). An
introduction to criminological theory. Routledge.
Butt, S., & Lindsey, T.
(2020). The Criminal Procedure Code. In Crime and Punishment in Indonesia
(pp. 44–69). Routledge.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research
design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.
de Miguel Perales, C., &
Wilkinson, G. (2024). Criminal Enforcement of Environmental Law in the
European Union and the United States. Encyclopedia
of Toxicology, 311–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-824315-2.00051-8
Demin, A. V. (2020). Certainty
and Uncertainty in Tax Law: Do Opposites Attract? Laws, 9(4),
30.
Erwiningsih, W.
(2023). Enhancing Legal Certainty in Land Collateral: Bridging Regulatory
Gaps, Mitigating Vulnerabilities, and Promoting Credit Access in Indonesia. Croatian
International Relations Review, 29(93), 26–49.
Ginsberg, R. (2018). Mighty
crime victims: Victims’ rights and neoliberalism in the American conjuncture.
In Cultural Studies and the’Juridical Turn’
(pp. 196–231). Routledge.
Iksan, M., Surbakti, N., Kurnianingsih, M.,
Budiono, A., Al-Fatih, S.,
& Ramon, T. M. (2023). Fulfilling the restitution rights of crime victims:
The legal practice in Indonesia. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary
Studies, 12(4), 152–160.
Jivebäck Pap, K.
(2021). An even application of plausibility? A legal study of the
application of the principle of legal certainty to the plausibility threshold
in relation to pharmaceutical patents in European patent law.
Lapkin, A., Maryniv, V., Yevtieieva, D., Stolitnii, A., & Borovyk, A.
(2019). Compensation for damage caused by offences as the way of protection of
victims’ rights (on the example of Ukraine): The economic and legal aspects. J.
Legal Ethical & Regul. Isses,
22, 1.
Lei, L. (2017). Legal Methods,
Legal Certainty and the Rule of Law. Renmin Chinese Law Review: Selected
Papers of the Jurist, 5.
Maiano, L., Montuschi, A., Caserio, M., Ferri, E., Kieffer, F., Germanò,
C., Baiocco, L., Ricciardi Celsi, L., Amerini, I., & Anagnostopoulos, A. (2023). A
deep-learning–based antifraud system for car-insurance claims. Expert
Systems with Applications, 231.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ESWA.2023.120644
Ngulube, P.
(2015). Qualitative data analysis and interpretation: systematic search for
meaning. Addressing Research Challenges: Making Headway for Developing
Researchers, 131, 156.
Nugroho, A. F. (2023). Legal
Protection For Victims Of Fair Trial Rights As A Form Of Human Rights
Protection In The Indonesian Justice System. Policy, Law, Notary And
Regulatory Issues, 2(1), 1–12.
Santriana, S., Anisah, D., & Kesuma, S. I.
(2023). Crime Victims in Indonesia’s Criminal Justice System Based on The
Criminal Procedure Law (KUHAP). Jurnal
Hukum Dan Sosial Politik, 1(3), 90–98.
Sjarif, K.
(2019). The Role of Penal Mediation To Resolve Criminal Acts That Cause Harms
To Others In Indonesian Military Court. J. Legal Ethical & Regul. Isses, 22, 1.
Tryzna, J.
(2019). 15 Is the principle of legal certainty a human right? The
Philosophy of Legal Change: Theoretical Perspectives and Practical Processes,
166.
Ul Akmal,
D. (2021). Indonesian State of Law is an Aspired Concept. Nurani Hukum,
4, 77.
|
Copyright
holder: Lonna Yohanes Lengkong, Tomson
Situmeang, Andree Washington (2024) |
|
First
publication rights: International Journal of Social Service and
Research (IJSSR) |
|
This
article is licensed under:
|
