<![CDATA[This study aims to analyze the implementation of the fair trial principle in the premeditated murder case involving Ferdy Sambo and to assess the extent to which procedural and substantive justice were applied at each judicial level. The research employs a qualitative method using a normative-empirical juridical approach, which examines the legal norms governing fair trial and compares them with their practical application within Indonesia’s criminal justice process. Data were obtained through a review of legislation, court decisions, legal doctrines, and analysis of official documents and media reports related to the case. The findings indicate that the fair trial principle was formally fulfilled in accordance with procedural law such as the right to legal defense, public hearings, and judicial independence. However, from a substantive perspective, the application of justice remains incomplete due to the influence of public opinion, social pressure, and perceived inconsistencies among court decisions from the district court to the Supreme Court. The lower courts’ death penalty rulings reflect a retributive conception of justice, while the Supreme Court’s decision to reduce the sentence to life imprisonment demonstrates a shift toward corrective and humanitarian justice. The study concludes that the fair trial principle in Indonesia has been implemented procedurally but still requires reinforcement in its substantive dimension to ensure that justice is not only formally executed but also genuinely experienced by all parties. Consistency in judicial decisions, stronger judicial independence, and balanced protection of both victims’ and defendants’ rights are essential to achieving a fair and dignified justice system.]]>
