<![CDATA[This study juridically analyzes the system of evidence in Indonesian and Thai criminal procedure law, focusing on the regulation and application of evidentiary instruments. It compares the formalistic and enumerative approach of Indonesia’s Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), particularly Articles 183–184, which require a minimum of two lawful pieces of evidence—namely witness testimony, expert testimony, documents, indications, and defendant statements—against Thailand’s more inclusive model under Sections 226–231 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), which classifies evidence into material, documentary, and personal evidence and grants broader judicial discretion. Both systems share similarities, including the exclusionary rule against illegally obtained evidence and the recognition of digital evidence in response to contemporary legal developments, particularly after Indonesia’s reform through Law No. 20 of 2025. However, structural differences significantly affect the effectiveness of justice: Indonesia emphasizes legal certainty to prevent judicial subjectivity, while Thailand promotes procedural flexibility and allows private prosecution to enhance efficiency and victim participation. Employing a normative-comparative method, this study concludes that ASEAN legal harmonization is necessary to develop a balanced hybrid evidentiary model capable of ensuring substantive truth while safeguarding the human rights of suspects and defendants in the era of transnational crime.]]>
