<![CDATA[This study aims to analyze the legal regulations governing the execution of returning evidence within the criminal justice system and to examine the legal consequences for evidence that remains unclaimed by its owner after a court judgment has become final and binding. The study employs a normative legal research method, utilizing statutory, conceptual, and case-based approaches. Legal materials were gathered through a literature review of statutes, court rulings, and relevant academic sources, and were subsequently analyzed qualitatively using descriptive-analytical techniques. The findings indicate that the execution of returning evidence to its owner falls within the authority of the public prosecutor as the executor of court judgments. However, existing legal provisions do not explicitly regulate the resolution mechanism for evidence ordered to be returned but left unclaimed by the owner. This regulatory gap creates legal uncertainty, leads to inconsistent practices among prosecutors' offices, and hinders the orderly administration of evidence management. Evidence left unclaimed for extended periods imposes storage burdens, risks of damage and depreciation in economic value, and increased state responsibility for the item's maintenance. Consequently, there is a need to establish specific legal norms governing the deadline for retrieval, the mechanism for notifying owners, the legal status of unclaimed evidence, and the prosecutor's authority to determine the final disposition of such evidence, thereby ensuring legal certainty, utility, and justice within the criminal justice system.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
