<![CDATA[The enactment of Law Number 20 of 2025 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) introduces a defendant's confession mechanism in court proceedings as stipulated in Article 205, that requires Judges to assess six elements before diverting the examination to a summary proceeding, including the element that the confession was not caused by pressure, coercion, or torture during the investigation and prosecution process. Textually, this provision aligns with Article 33 of Law Number 39 of 1999 concerning Human Rights and Article 15 of the Convention Against Torture. However, its examination mechanism relies on court proceedings based on case files produced by the very authorities whose conduct is being scrutinized. This article aims to analyze the normative construction of such guarantees and examine the extent to which their application in district court decisions post-enactment of the new CPC reflects a substantive examination. This research employs a normative juridical method, analyzing district court decisions that apply Article 205 of the CPC available in the Supreme Court Decision Directory, utilizing a formal-substantive indicator framework developed by the author. The analysis of the six available decisions reveals that two decisions completely lack explicit consideration of the freedom-from-coercion element; three decisions merely state that all requirements are met without outlining the underlying basis (formal); one decision explicitly mentions the element but lacks supporting evidentiary descriptions (semi-formal); and not a single decision demonstrates a substantive examination. This article is expected to contribute to filling the literature gap, which has predominantly focused on the normative construction of guilty pleas without examining judicial practices, while simultaneously offering an analytical framework to monitor the implementation of similar provisions in the future.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
