<![CDATA[The legal position of the Berita Acara Pemeriksaan (BAP) as evidence when a defendant recants the statement it contains at trial remains contested under Law Number 20 of 2025 on the Code of Criminal Procedure, implicating the principles of non-self-incrimination and due process. Employing a normative-empirical approach and drawing on Law Number 20 of 2025, Law Number 1 of 2023, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and three final decisions of the Donggala District Court as primary legal materials, this study finds that the BAP is not a primary, self-standing item of evidence; its probative value depends on the lawfulness of its procurement and its consistency with the other evidence at trial. Under the negative statutory system of proof (negatief wettelijke bewijstheorie), recantation triggers stricter judicial testing rather than automatic rejection. Where recantation is rejected for want of corroboration, the BAP functions as an indication supporting proof of the charge while the defendant's courtroom testimony is excluded from the evidentiary assessment; where recantation is accepted, the courtroom testimony acquires probative value and the investigation record loses evidentiary weight. Analysis of the three decisions reveals a partial normative vacuum, as the Code does not expressly regulate the consequences of a defendant's denial of an investigation record's contents, generating inconsistency that undermines legal certainty. The reformed Code advances defendants' rights but leaves their practical delivery contingent on judicial discretion, and the legislature should establish explicit provisions governing the assessment of recantation and the evidentiary consequences of investigation irregularities.]]>
