<![CDATA[The background of this research stems from the importance of appellate remedies as a control mechanism within Indonesia’s criminal justice system, particularly to ensure that every decision issued by the court of first instance meets the standards of justice, objectivity, and legal certainty. The Ferdy Sambo case (Jakarta High Court Decision Number 98/PID/2023/PT.DKI) serves as a significant example illustrating how an appeal can function as a corrective instrument for potential errors in assessing facts or applying legal norms. The purpose of this study is to analyze the extent to which the appellate process can guarantee substantive and procedural justice, as well as how decisions at the appellate level reflect the principles of a fair trial within both national and international legal contexts. This research employs a normative juridical method using statutory and case approaches, grounded in Articles 233–243 of the Indonesian Code of Criminal Procedure and the human rights principles contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The analysis demonstrates that an appeal is not merely a formal procedure but an essential instrument for reassessing the proportionality of punishment and ensuring adequate legal protection for the defendant. The findings indicate that the modification of the sentence from the death penalty to life imprisonment reflects a more humanistic and rational application of justice, aligned with universal values in modern judicial practice. In addition to providing space for judicial correction, the appellate mechanism also upholds judicial accountability and strengthens public trust in the integrity of the judiciary. In conclusion, the effectiveness of appellate remedies is strongly influenced by judicial independence, consistency in legal application, and transparency in the examination process, making it a vital pillar in ensuring substantive and procedural justice within Indonesia’s criminal justice system.]]>
