Abstract
Pretrial Request Number 3/Pid.Pra/2021/PN.Tpg from the Tanjung Pinang District Court, citing expiration as the basis for the request. This study focuses on how Pre-trial object arrangements are governed by the Criminal Procedure Code in relation to the Constitutional Court's decision No. 21/PUU-XII/2014 and whether the legal considerations and dictum of the Pretrial decision No. 3/Pid.Pra/2021/PN.Tpg were in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Constitutional Court's decision No. 21/PUU-XII/2014. The author conducted normative research in order to respond to this query. Data management is conducted qualitatively, with reference to secondary data or library materials, while analysis and conclusion-drawing are qualitatively descriptive and deductive, respectively. Conclusions drawn from the research and discussion are that the legal considerations and the judge's dictum in Tanjungpinang District Pre-Trial Case Number 3/Pid.Pra/2021/PN.Tpg are not appropriate because there are only two grounds for determining a suspect: the allegation that the suspect committed a crime and the existence of sufficient preliminary evidence.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
