English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

ABSTRAKPutusan Nomor 75/PUU-XIII/2015 atas permohonan pengujian Pasal 20 ayat (3) Undang-Undang Pengadilan Hak Asasi Manusia, memiliki aspek menarik terkait kepastian hukum dan keadilan. Pemohon menilai keberadaan istilah ‘berkas kurang lengkap’ dalam ketentuan a quo memberikan ketidakadilan karena tidak memberikan kepastian hukum. Sebaliknya, penyidik, dalam hal ini Jaksa Agung justu menganggap keberadaan rumusan tersebut memberikan kepastian hukum sekaligus keadilan yang dibutuhkan oleh pencari keadilan maupun masyarakat. Penelitian menggunakan metode penelitian studi kasus yang mendasarkan dokumen Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi sebagai bahan hukum primer, dibandingkan dengan bahan hukum sekunder berupa teori hukum pidana dan hak asasi manusia. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa Putusan Nomor 75/PUU-XIII/2015 memberikan pertimbangan, bahwa pengaturan tersebut tetap konstitusional. Perbedaan pemahaman ini menunjukkan bahwa keberadaan berkas penyelidikan yang ‘kurang lengkap’  dapat dimungkinkan. Hal tersebut dianggap sebagai kondisi praktis penegakan hukum yang menekankan kehati-hatian dan persamaan di hadapan hukum.Kata kunci: berkas perkara, asas hukum acara pidana, constitutional rights, putusan hakim.  ABSTRACTConstitutional Court Decision Number 75/PUUXIII/2015 on the request for a judicial review of Article 20 paragraph (3) of Law on Human Rights Court has an interesting aspect related to the rule of law and justice. The Petitioner considered that the term ‘incomplete file’ in the quo provision raises a sense of injustice because it cannot bring legal certainty. Instead, the investigator, in this case the Attorney General considers the formulation can actually provide legal certainty as well as sense of justice needed by the justice seekers and the community. This analysis uses case study research method based on the document of Constitutional Court Decision as the primary law material compared with secondary law material in the form of criminal law theory and human rights. The results of the analysis show that the Constitutional Court Decision Number 75/PUU-XIII/2015 considers that the arrangement is still constitutional. This distinction of understanding suggests that ‘case file incomplete’ may be possible. It is regarded as the practical conditions of law enforcement that emphasize prudence and equality before the law.Keywords: case file, principles of criminal procedure law, constitutional rights, judge’s decision.

INTERPRETASI ‘KURANG LENGKAP’ BERKAS PENYELIDIKAN DALAM PERKARA DUGAAN PELANGGARAN HAK ASASI MANUSIA BERAT