Abstract
Trial proving in Indonesia has always been limited to Criminal Procedural Law and other regulations. Following the recent development of electronic criminal case trials, there has not been any precise regulation aside from Supreme Court Regulation 4 of 2020. The contradiction between KUHAP and Supreme Court Regulation causes problems, especially regarding trial proving. The purpose of the paper is to provide a legal solution to the problem of the legal emptiness regarding the regulation of trial proving in electronic criminal case trials from the perspective of Dignified Justice that will provide advantageous, responsive, and adaptive justice towards the needs of the community. The methodology of this research is based on normative research. The normative research methods used in this research are the statute, normative, and comparative approaches. The result shown there shouldn't be a conflict between the effect of KUHAP and Supreme Court Regulation. Yet, the regulation of trial proving in an electronic criminal trial should be regulated at a statute level.
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.
