Article Sidebar

Download
Download Article

Main Article Content

Abstract

Indonesia, as a democratic country that prioritises human rights, pays special attention to the protection of the rights of its citizens involved in the criminal justice process. In this regard, case files are an important element in the preparation of evidence in criminal cases. However, there is a misalignment in the criminal law regarding how to access case files. Article 72 of KUHAP allows suspects to request a copy of the investigation report, while Article 143(4) of KUHAP requires the prosecutor to include the case file when submitting the case to the court. In order to ensure fairness in the criminal justice system and maintain cost-efficiency in the handling of cases, it is important to explore and clarify the right of access to case files. This paper aims to identify the ideal form of such a right in order to accommodate the needs of suspects, defendants or prisoners in properly preparing their defence in the Indonesian criminal justice process. In the Indonesian criminal justice system, case files are important documents used by suspects, defendants or prisoners to prepare a defence in a criminal case. Unfortunately, the right of access to case files, as stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), still creates confusion. Article 72 of the Criminal Procedure Code entitles the suspect to request a copy of the investigation report, while Article 143(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code requires the prosecutor to include the case file when submitting the case to the court. This paper concludes that Article 72 of the Criminal Procedure Code needs to be revised to clarify the right of access to case files. The revision proposes changing the text to read "Upon request of the suspect, accused or convict, or his/her proxy, the relevant official shall provide a copy of the derivative examination report for the purpose of their defence." Similarly, the explanation of Article 143 of KUHAP is revised to clarify that the power of attorney for the appointment of a case is the letter of appointment of the case itself complete with the indictment and case file, except for the case file provided at the request of the suspect, his attorney, or his legal counsel to the prosecutor. These changes provide a more definitive formulation while taking into account the economic approach in the criminal justice process. The right of access to case files remains protected, while the state is not burdened with the obligation to provide case files to all suspects at the prosecution stage.

Keywords

right case files criminal

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Rahim, A., & Rahim, M. I. F. (2023). Right to Case Files in Criminal Cases in Indonesia. Golden Ratio of Law and Social Policy Review, 3(1), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.52970/grlspr.v3i1.305
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Akbar, M. F. (2022). Pembaharuan Keadilan Restoratif Dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana Indonesia. Masalah-Masalah Hukum, 51(2), 199–208. https://doi.org/10.14710/mmh.51.2.2022.199-208
  2. Ansori, & Subroto, G. (2022). Peran Ppatk Dalam Mencegah Dan Memberantas Tindak Pidana Pencucian Uang. Unira Law Journal, 1(1), 34–48.
  3. Dinanti, D., & Wahyuningsih, Y. Y. (2016). Perlindungan Hukum Atas Hak-Hak Tersangka Pada Proses Penyidikan Perkara Pidana Dalam Perspektif Hak Asasi Manusia. Jurnal Yuridis, 3(2), 96. https://doi.org/10.35586/.v3i2.181
  4. Faisal, F. (2019). Eksistensi Pengadilan Hak Asasi Manusia Terhadap Penegakan Hak Asasi Manusia Dalam Sistem Peradilan. Gorontalo Law Review, 2(1), 33. https://doi.org/10.32662/golrev.v2i1.559
  5. Flora, H. S., & Suharudin, Y. (2023). Indonesian Culture In The New Criminal Code: From Ius Constituendum To Ius Constitutum. Syiah Kuala Law Journal, 7(2), 157–170. https://doi.org/10.24815/sklj.v7i2.31502
  6. Handika, S., Rahim, M. I. F., & Sudirdja, R. P. (2020). Virtual Court Policy For Criminal Justice on Corona Virus Disease Pandemic. Substantive Justice International Journal of Law, 3(1), 74. https://doi.org/10.33096/sjijl.v3i1.67
  7. Isra, S., Yuliandri, Amsari, F., & Tegnan, H. (2017). Obstruction of justice in the effort to eradicate corruption in Indonesia. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 51, 72–83. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2017.07.001
  8. Martana, N., Martana, P. A. H., Sudiarawan, K. A., & Hermanto, B. (2019). Discourses of Legal Certainty in Execution of Administrative Court Decision. Substantive Justice International Journal of Law; Vol 2 No 2 (2019): Substantive Justice International Journal of LawDO - 10.33096/Substantivejustice.V2i2.35 . https://www.substantivejustice.id/index.php/sucila/article/view/35
  9. Rahim, M. I. F., Rahim, S. A. P., Rahim, M. A. H. A., Rahim, A. R., & Rahim, A. (2020). Penyitaan Barang Bukti Tindak Pidana pada Tingkat Pemeriksaan Persidangan. Pleno Jure, 9(1), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.37541/plenojure.v9i1.389
  10. Renan, D. (2017). The Law Presidents Make. Virginia Law Review, 103(5), 805–904. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26525270
  11. Santriana Santriana, Desi Anisah, & Satria Indra Kesuma. (2023). Crime Victims in Indonesia’s Criminal Justice System Based on The Criminal Procedure Law (KUHAP). Jurnal Hukum Dan Sosial Politik, 1(3 SE-Articles), 90–98. https://doi.org/10.59581/jhsp-widyakarya.v1i3.539
  12. Saputra, R. S. A. (2013). Tinjauan Yuridis Tentang Hubungan Fungsionil Antara Penyidik Dan Penuntut Umum Dalam Delik Aduan. Legal Opinion, 1(5).
  13. Seo, S. A. (2013). Antinomies and the Automobile: A New Approach to Criminal Justice Histories. Law & Social Inquiry, 38(4), 1019–1040. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1111/lsi.12047