Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.444
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal LAW REFORM Lex Scientia Law Review
Sahat Maruli Tua Situmeang
Faculty of Law, Universitas Komputer Indonesia
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
Presence of Pretrial in the Perspective of the Pancasila State of Law Sahat Maruli Tua Situmeang
LAW REFORM Vol 17, No 2 (2021)
Publisher : PROGRAM STUDI MAGISTER ILMU HUKUM FAKULTAS HUKUM UNIVERSITAS DIPONEGORO SEMARANG

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (95.077 KB) | DOI: 10.14710/lr.v17i2.41746

Abstract

Pretrial is a process that precedes a trial in court or a preliminary examination before entering a trial. However, in its application, pretrial institutions both before and after the Constitutional Court Decision Number 21/PUU-XII/2014 are not in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code and also have weaknesses or shortcomings. This paper aims to find out the presence of pretrial institutions in the perspective of the Pancasila state of law. In other hand, pretrial institution as an institution that oversees the protection of the human rights of suspects/defendants is regulated in Chapter X Articles 77 to Article 83 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The determination of the suspect must be carried out carefully by taking into account the principle of presumption of innocence as a general principle in criminal procedural law that must be enforced by law enforcers. In law enforcement, of course, there must be supervision both vertically and horizontally so as to minimize the occurrence of irregularities. Therefore, it is important to establish an Ad Hoc institution as a substitute for a Pretrial institution in which the judges consisting of career judges, legal practitioners and academics can act whether there is an application or not which is filed by the suspect/defendant or his family or proxies so that the decision is objective. Thus, it is important to reformulate the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the determination of suspects.
Human Rights Protection Related to Arrest, Detention, and Judicial Remedies: A Comparative Legal Study of Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt Sahat Maruli Tua Situmeang; Athari Farhani; Subagyo Sri Utomo
Lex Scientia Law Review Vol. 10 No. 1 (2026): Legal Reform, Human Rights Protection, and Judicial Innovation in Contemporary
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Semarang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.15294/lslr.v10i1.30553

Abstract

Arrest, detention, and pretrial legal remedies constitute crucial stages in criminal procedure because they determine the extent to which state coercive power is constrained by due process and human rights guarantees. This study aims to examine and compare the legal regulation and practical implementation of arrest, detention, and pretrial review mechanisms in Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, with particular attention to their compliance with human rights standards. Methodologically, this research employs normative legal research using a doctrinal and institutional comparative approach, analyzing statutory provisions, procedural regulations, constitutional safeguards, and relevant reports and legal materials. The findings show that Indonesia provides relatively stronger procedural safeguards through the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) and the praperadilan mechanism, which functions as judicial control over unlawful arrest and detention. Egypt formally recognizes legal oversight through the public prosecution and judicial review, yet persistent implementation gaps raise concerns regarding prolonged pretrial detention and limited procedural transparency. In contrast, Saudi Arabia demonstrates weaker independent judicial supervision at the pretrial stage, increasing the risk of arbitrary detention and executive overreach. This comparative analysis concludes that strengthening effective judicial review, access to legal counsel, and procedural accountability is essential to prevent abuses of power. The study recommends reinforcing institutional checks on detention practices to ensure greater alignment with international human rights principles and due process requirements.
Co-Authors Athari Farhani Subagyo Sri Utomo