<![CDATA[The urgency of the judge’s role as a supervisor over the implementation of restorative justice by police investigators has become an important issue in the development of Indonesia’s criminal justice system following the enactment of Law Number 1 of 2023 concerning the Criminal Code. The reform of national criminal law reflects a paradigm shift from a purely retributive approach toward a more restorative, humane, and recovery-oriented system. Within this framework, restorative justice is increasingly recognized as an alternative mechanism for resolving criminal cases by emphasizing reconciliation, restoration of losses, and the participation of offenders, victims, and the community in achieving a fair settlement. In practice, police investigators play a strategic role in determining whether a criminal case may be resolved through restorative justice at the investigation stage. However, the broad discretionary authority granted to investigators raises concerns regarding accountability, legal certainty, and the protection of victims’ rights. Normatively, various regulations have provided legal grounds for the implementation of restorative justice by the Indonesian National Police. Nevertheless, the existing legal framework has not yet clearly regulated the relationship between the authority of investigators to terminate investigations through restorative justice and the supervisory function of judges within the criminal justice system. This situation creates a legal gap that may lead to inconsistencies in the application of restorative justice and potentially weaken public confidence in criminal law enforcement. Therefore, the concept of Judicial Scrutiny emerges as a mechanism to ensure that restorative justice agreements are carried out voluntarily, fairly, and in accordance with the principles of restorative justice. Judicial supervision is expected to function as an instrument of checks and balances over the exercise of investigative discretion without undermining the effectiveness of criminal investigations. Furthermore, one of the major challenges in implementing restorative justice is the potential commodification of criminal cases through transactional settlements commonly referred to as “buying and selling cases.” The absence of effective supervisory mechanisms may increase the risk of abuse of authority and allow restorative justice to be used as a means of avoiding criminal accountability rather than achieving genuine restoration. In this regard, the role of judges as supervisors becomes increasingly important in ensuring that restorative justice remains oriented toward the protection and restoration of victims’ rights, accountability of offenders, and the realization of substantive justice. Accordingly, an ideal model of judicial supervision is required to create a more transparent, accountable, and fair restorative justice system while preventing the commodification of criminal cases within Indonesia’s criminal justice framework.]]>
