<![CDATA[Article 90 paragraph (1) of the Law Number 20 of 2025 on Criminal Procuedural Law (CPC) Regarding the pre-trial proceeding, Article 2(2) of the Supreme Court Regulation Number 4 of 2016 limits the pre-trial proceedings competence in such a way that judges shall only examine the formal aspect of a person’s suspect determination legitimacy which refers to the minimum quantity of 2 valid evidences and shall not examine the material aspect of any cases. Until the CPC came into forece, the Supreme Court Regulatin is still in force. Such limitation is an incoherence with the principles of due process of law and human rights protection. Neither it coheres with the concept of suspect determination itself. This research is conducted in order to analyze the incoherence of Article 2(2) of the Supreme Court Regulation Number 4 of 2016 with the principles of due process of law and human rights protection and the concept of suspect determination. This research is conducted by using the normative research method. The novelty of this research is a proposition that Article 2(2) of the Supreme Court Regulation Number 4 of 2016 shall be set aside by the pre-trial judges in examining the relevancy of evidences as the basis of suspect determination. Furthermore, it is necessary to clearly stipulate the obligation of pre-trial judges to examine the relevancy of evidence as the basis of suspect determination.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
