Jakarta (ANTARA) - Legal observer from the Faculty of Law at the\nIslamic University of Indonesia, Wahyu Priyanka Nata Permana, stated\nthat in handling a case, requesting clarification from a prospective\nsuspect is important.<\/p>\n
Wahyu said in a statement in Jakarta on Tuesday that the request for\nclarification is part of applying the principle of due process of law,\nthe right to be heard, and the right to prepare a defence. This is\ndespite the fact that the new Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) no longer\nexplicitly requires the examination of prospective suspects.<\/p>\n
\u201cTherefore, to avoid unfair prejudice or unreasonable bias, in my\nview it is proper for a person to be examined first before being named a\nsuspect, to avoid losing when tested in a pretrial hearing,\u201d he\nsaid.<\/p>\n
His statement was in response to the alleged corruption and money\nlaundering (TPPU) case that has named former Deputy Attorney General for\nSpecial Crimes Febrie Adriansyah as a suspect.<\/p>\n
He also questioned the issuance of the investigation order (sprindik)\nin the case, which could lead to differing views regarding the\napplicability of Constitutional Court Decision Number 21 of 2014.<\/p>\n
Wahyu said that although Article 90 of the KUHAP states that naming a\nsuspect must be based on at least two pieces of evidence, Article 91 of\nthe KUHAP states that naming a suspect prohibits actions that create a\npresumption of guilt.<\/p>\n
\u201cFor example, the neglect of the right to prepare a defence. In my\nopinion, the person should be examined first, although views may differ,\nand it is not an obligation under the current KUHAP. But the implication\nis the protection of human rights. Furthermore, it is in line with\nArticle 91 of the KUHAP, which prohibits acts of presumption of guilt,\u201d\nhe said.<\/p>\n
Therefore, he said, prospective suspects should be given the\nopportunity to provide clarification so that the process of naming a\nsuspect also avoids arbitrariness on the part of investigators.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis does not only apply to this case. When the procedural\nrequirements in the process of naming a suspect are not fulfilled, it\ncould result in the suspect designation being invalid, but the procedure\nmust go through a pretrial mechanism. It will then be up to the judge to\ngrant or reject it,\u201d Wahyu said.<\/p>\n
He said that under the old KUHAP regulations, a pretrial motion would\nbe dismissed if the case had been transferred to court. However, under\nthe new KUHAP, the pretrial ruling must be awaited before the main case\ncan proceed.<\/p>\n
\u201cBut regarding, for example, the examination of violations of a\nsuspect\u2019s rights, that cannot be tested. So, if we look at whether there\nis a need for improvements to the pretrial institution, yes, there is,\u201d\nWahyu said.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/observer-requesting-clarification-from-prospective-suspects-is-important-1787647966", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }