Legal expert: Term 'protection' encourages state to actively safeguard victims

Jakarta (ANTARA) - Secretary General of the Association of Criminal Law and Criminology Lecturers (ASPERHUPIKI), Ahmad Sofian, assesses that the change in terminology from “protection” to “safeguarding” in the Witness and Victim Protection Bill (RUU PSDK) drives a shift in the state’s role. The state’s role, initially responsive, becomes proactive in comprehensively and sustainably guaranteeing the rights of witnesses and victims. Sofian told ANTARA in Jakarta on Wednesday that this nomenclature change is not merely a linguistic aspect but an affirmation of the direction of legal policy that demands active and sustained state involvement. “The nomenclature change from ‘perlindungan’ to ‘pelindungan’ represents a normative paradigm shift from the state’s passive obligations to active obligations,” he stated. According to him, in this new approach, the state can no longer merely wait for reports or respond to threats but must ensure the fulfilment of rights systematically. “The state is no longer just responding but is obliged to proactively, systematically, and sustainably ensure the fulfilment of those rights,” he said. He explained that this change brings broad juridical consequences, particularly in strengthening state accountability in the criminal justice system. “There is an expansion of the scope of state responsibility, where the state can be held accountable not only for actions taken but also for failures to act,” he stated. Additionally, the state’s obligations become more open to testing through legal mechanisms. He conveyed that such testing can be conducted through various channels, including constitutional review, civil lawsuits, or reports of maladministration. Furthermore, Sofian assesses that this change also raises the standards for evaluating the state’s performance in protecting witnesses and victims. “The state is no longer judged merely by the presence or absence of actions but by the effectiveness and adequacy of those actions in providing safeguarding,” he stated. According to him, this shift simultaneously reconstructs the relationship between the state and citizens in the criminal justice system. “The state is no longer just a spectator or reactor but the main actor responsible for actively ensuring the fulfilment of witnesses’ and victims’ rights,” he said. Nevertheless, he emphasised that the success of this concept heavily depends on implementation in the field by law enforcement officials. Additionally, he highlighted the importance of sustained protection, especially after the trial process concludes. “The state’s obligations do not end when the verdict is handed down but must remain present in the most vulnerable phase, namely post-trial,” he said. In practice, he continued, the post-trial phase often becomes a high-risk point for witnesses and victims, where risks to them frequently increase. Therefore, he emphasised that the state must ensure protection continues so that witnesses and victims do not face threats again after the legal process ends.