<![CDATA[The Constitutional Court is one of the perpetrators of the powers of the judiciary among others authorized to adjudicate on the first and last level that an award is final to examine legislation against the Constitution of 1945. Determination of whether a suspect could be debated as part of a pretrial objects end with the existence of a ruling of the Constitutional Court Docket Number 21/PUU-XII/2014 date 28 April 2015.Normative Juridical Approach: Research. The type of research used in this study is a descriptive analysis. The source of the data in this study is secondary data, and qualitative Data Analysis techniques are normative.Fine points of consideration and decision of the judge of the Constitutional Court in its Ruling No. 21/PUU-XII/2014 date 28 April 2015, about testing a number of CODE of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Article specifically about the authority of pretrial Article 77 a CODE of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE and the interpretation of the phrase "evidence of the beginning", "the beginnings of proof enough", and "sufficient evidence" as mentioned in article 1 point 2, article 17 and article 21 paragraph (1) of the CODE of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, it was decided as follows :1) object praperadailan the authority of article 77 paragraph (1) of the CODE of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, set expanded including the determination of the suspects, searches and seizures; 2) phrase "the beginning", "proof of evidence of the beginning of a fairly", and "sufficient evidence" as specified in article 1 point 2, article 17 and article 21, paragraph (1) of the CODE of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, must be a minimum of two is meant evidence contained in article 184 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE; 3) the process of determination of suspects by investigators should be based on a minimum of two evidence contained in the CODE of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Article 184 (eyewitness description; experts; mail; instructions; description of the defendant).]]>
Copyrights © 2016
