Criminal Procedure Law Research Articles

Criminal Liability by the Company in the Implementation of Occupational Safety and Health Management System

The purpose of this research is to find out how companies can be held accountable for their violations of the occupational safety and health management system. This research was conducted qualitatively using empirical data and legal sources of legislation. This research was conducted at the South Sulawesi Provincial Manpower Office and BPJS Employment Makassar City Branch. The results show that businesses can be criminally liable if they commit errors or omissions, such as not reporting work accidents, not registering employees in the BPJS employment social security program, and not having OHS certification for employees and operators. Criminal liability accepted by organisations includes imprisonment. In addition to criminal penalties, companies may also face administrative reprimands or fines. If companies do not implement an Occupational Safety and Health Management System, they must receive a warning. If the company does not follow the warning, the Indonesian Law No. 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedure Law will be applied, in accordance with the provisions in PERMA No. 13 of 2016 on Procedures for Handling Criminal Cases by Companies. Companies that do not implement the Occupational Safety and Health Management System will be subject to imprisonment for a maximum of 3 months according to Article 15 of Law No. 1 of 1970 on Occupational Safety and Article 186 of Law No. 13 of 2003 on Labour.

Derecho Penal Sustantivo y Adjetivo en México: control social para la prevención y represión de conductas delictivas

This study aimed to analyze the persistent human rights violations within the Mexican criminal justice system, despite the reforms implemented. The main objective was to examine the role of formal social control in crime prevention and repression, as well as to evaluate the effectiveness of substantive and procedural criminal law in protecting fundamental rights. To conduct this research, an review of specialized literature and reports from international and national organizations was carried out. The results reveal that, despite normative advances, practices such as torture, arbitrary detention, and inhumane prison conditions persist. These violations are exacerbated by the lack of judicial independence, corruption, and impunity. The analysis of substantive and procedural criminal law showed that, while there are advances in legislation, problems such as the imprecision of some criminal offenses, the workload of system operators, and the lack of resources persist. In conclusion, the Mexican criminal justice system faces significant challenges in protecting human rights. A comprehensive reform is required that addresses the structural causes of violations, strengthens judicial independence, professionalizes police forces, and guarantees access to justice. Furthermore, it is essential to promote a culture of legality and respect for human rights.

KẾT LUẬN ĐỊNH GIÁ TÀI SẢN TRONG LUẬT TỐ TỤNG HÌNH SỰ VIỆT NAM VÀ MỘT SỐ KIẾN NGHỊ HOÀN THIỆN

The 2015 Criminal Procedure Code introduced asset valuation conclusions as a new type of evidence, crucial in resolving criminal cases. This article examines the criminal procedure stipulations and identifies current legal shortcomings concerning asset valuation conclusions, including their types, content, format, and the rights of participants regarding these conclusions. From this analysis, the authors propose recommendations to enhance the Vietnamese criminal procedure law, particularly in reforming evidence sources like asset valuation conclusions.

Harmonization of Legal Systems: Analysis of the Relationship between the Principle of Restorative Justice and Criminal Procedure Law (Kuhap) in Indonesia

Harmonization of Legal Systems: Analysis of the Relationship between the Principle of Restorative Justice and Criminal Procedure Law (Kuhap) in Indonesia

The Role of Digital Forensics in Criminal Investigations: An Analysis of Electronic Evidence in the Indonesian Legal System

Research on the use of digital forensic evidence in the process of investigating criminal acts, especially those carried out by the Police with their legal structure capabilities, aims to find out and analyze the extent to which evidence produced through digital forensics plays an important role in the process of proving criminal acts, the results of which become electronic evidence that has the strength of evidence in the applicable criminal procedural law. The type of research is normative (doctrinal), namely research that views law as building a system of norms. Digital forensics is an important instrument that helps investigators carry out research and investigation tasks, and it is an absolute requirement that must be met so that electronic documents can be used as evidence from the start of investigations, inquiries, prosecutions, and trials. The role of digital forensics in uncovering a criminal case starts from the preliminary stage, where investigators begin to collect evidence and electronic evidence assisted by one or more digital forensic experts. Digital forensics from the investigation stage is used to find material truth in every process of proving a criminal act.

Plea Bargaining as a Reform in Criminal Procedure Law: An Analysis of Article 199 of the Draft Criminal Procedure Code

The criminal justice process in Indonesia is characterized by lengthy proceedings, significant costs, and a growing prison population, highlighting the need for new policies to address these challenges. The adoption of the plea-bargaining concept, prevalent in common law jurisdictions, offers a potential solution for the Indonesian criminal justice system. Article 199 of the Draft Law on Criminal Procedure introduces a similar concept, allowing defendants who admit guilt to crimes punishable by no more than seven years in prison to have their cases transferred to a shorter trial process. This normative juridical research employed both statutory and conceptual analyses to evaluate the relevance of plea bargaining in the Indonesian context. It aims to assess whether the plea bargaining provisions in Article 199 of the Draft Criminal Procedure Code align with the principles of simplicity, speed, and cost-effectiveness, and whether they conform to Pancasila, the foundational ideology of Indonesia.

The Legal Status of Circumstantial Evidence in the Context of Criminal Cases in Indonesia

In practice, there are several instances of criminal decisions that are not in accordance with the law. In such instances, the judge interprets the law or legal findings based on circumstantial evidence. As a result, the action taken does not achieve the highest degree of justice and legal certainty in a decision. This is because the decision is not based on the minimum requirements of two pieces of evidence that must be met in terms of evidence to impose a sentence. The objective of this research was to analyze the legal status of circumstantial evidence in the context of criminal cases. Our research findings indicate that the philosophy of circumstantial evidence, as it pertains to criminal procedural law, represents a form of evidence that can be considered by judges in relation to the absence of facts that are not directly visible by eyewitnesses. This evidence is intended to provide a comprehensive depiction of the truth of an event, thereby facilitating the acceptance of a reasonable account of events. Establishing circumstantial evidence is distinct from providing instructions, however. To do so, one must obtain clues from facts presented at trial in the form of witness statements, letters and statements of the accused. The ius constituendum application of circumstantial evidence in the process of proving a criminal case is to provide the judge with the authority to utilise circumstantial evidence in the process of proving a crime as an additional legal means of evidence in sentencing. The role of indirect evidence in the imposition of criminal penalties is a doctrine that is confined to be the domain of legal experts.

Ensuring the legal interests of a person in pre-trial criminal proceedings

In the science of the criminal process, there is no unified vision of the essence of a person’s legitimate interests and guarantees of their provision at the stage of pre-trial investigation. Ensuring a legitimate interest at the stage of pre-trial criminal proceedings is not supported by the performance of duties by other participants. An effective guarantee of the realization of a person’s legitimate interests in pre-trial criminal proceedings should be the real possibility of going to court to challenge the decisions, actions or inaction of law enforcement agencies. The presence of such a legal possibility should stimulate law enforcement agencies to take active actions aimed at satisfying legitimate interests. The criminal procedural law must provide for a mechanism to protect the legal interests of a person, both those that directly follow from the criminal procedural norms and those that are not provided for by the criminal procedural law, but are consistent with the spirit and principles of criminal justice. It can be argued that the legitimate interests of a person in pre-trial criminal proceedings are general legal and not prohibited aspirations of a person. Ensuring the legal interests of a person at the pre-trial stage of the criminal process should be ensured by a general obligation (general obligation) to take active actions by state bodies aimed at ensuring legal interests. The guarantee of the realization of the legal interests of a person in pre-trial criminal proceedings is the legal regulation in the criminal procedural law of the procedure for judicial appeal of decisions, actions or inaction of law enforcement bodies (including pre-trial investigation bodies) that prevent the realization of general legal aspirations of a person at the pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings. The need for regulatory regulation of the procedure for judicial protection of legitimate interests is determined by their legal nature, which provides for regularities in the actions of the participants of criminal proceedings of an undefined nature.

Separate elements of the event of a criminal offense to be ascertained at the initial stage of the investigation of murders committed with particular cruelty

In the article, on the basis of a systematic analysis of the norms of current criminal, civil and criminal procedural legislation, scientific sources on criminology, criminal and criminal procedural law, forensic medicine and other sciences, as well as on the basis of a systematic analysis of investigative and judicial practice of investigation and trial of criminal proceedings on murders committed with extreme cruelty, the circumstances to be proven in the above-mentioned criminal proceedings, as well as circumstances related to the event of a criminal offense, which must be clarified at the initial stage of the investigation of murders with extreme cruelty, are determined. It was determined that such circumstances, in addition to the method of committing the crime in the broad sense, which includes the preparation, mechanism and concealment of the traces of the crime, are the time of the commission of the crime, its duration, the place of the commission of the crime, circumstances indicating that the criminal was aware that he inflicts special physical suffering on the victim by inflicting a large number of bodily injuries, torture, mutilation, torture, including using fire, electricity, acid, alkali, radioactive substances, poison that causes excruciating pain, etc.), and must also be ascertained and proven fact of awareness by the guilty person (criminal) that he is causing mental or moral suffering to the victim. In the article, an attempt was made to reveal the meaning of the above-mentioned concepts, namely, a large number of bodily injuries, torture, mutilation, torture, mental and moral suffering. Proposed procedural measures (investigative (research) actions, forensic examinations), and forensic methods that should be carried out at the initial stage of the investigation and as a result of which these circumstances can be clarified with a high degree of probability. It was concluded that since we are talking about a particularly serious crime, all the qualifying features of this act should be clearly defined and established in the law on criminal responsibility.

The subject of proof in the criminal process of Ukraine

The article claims that the process of proving is the main content of criminal procedural activity. It is thanks to this process that the tasks of criminal procedure are fulfilled and the objective truth is established in criminal justice. The subject of proof in criminal proceedings is one of the key categories related to the process of proving. Establishing all the circumstances that characterize such a subject contribute to a full pre-trial investigation and trial. A conclusion has been formulated, according to which evidence in a criminal procedure should be understood as the activity of the subjects of criminal justice in relation to the collection, verification and evaluation of evidence and their procedural sources, as well as the formulation of a certain thesis (accusatory or exculpatory) on this basis and the submission of arguments in support of it. This activity is retrospective in nature. The purpose of cognition in criminal proceedings is to establish a certain set of circumstances of a criminal offense, which have been called “the subject of proof in a criminal procedure.” The list of such circumstances is defined in Art. 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) of Ukraine. The subject of proof in a criminal proceeding is the list of circumstances provided for by the Criminal Procedure Law of Ukraine, which must be established in each criminal proceeding and ensure the adoption of a corresponding procedural decision. The list of circumstances to be ascertained in criminal proceedings regarding criminal offenses committed by minors should be considered as a supplementary, clarifying subject of proof in relation to the general subject of proof. Circumstances to be established during criminal proceedings regarding the application of coercive measures of an breeding nature in relation to minors who have not reached the age of criminal responsibility, and regarding the use of coercive measures of a medical nature constitute a separate, independent subject of proof in a criminal process, determined by the characteristics of a person who has committed a socially-dangerous act, and the specifics of the criminal procedural form.

Ensuring that the prosecutor implements the principle of legality during the notification of suspicion

The article establishes that in criminal proceedings granting a person the procedural status of a suspect in committing a criminal offense is an important decision that requires the validity of the suspicion and control over the legality of its adoption. The problematic issues of ensuring the implementation of the principle of legality by the prosecutor during the notification of suspicion have been studied. It has been established that the prosecutor’s provision of legality during the notification of suspicion consists in: strict observance of the procedure established by law; ensuring the legal subject conducting the criminal process and reporting the suspicion; in getting to know the rights of the participants in the proceedings and ensuring their realization of these rights; as well as compliance with legal requirements regarding procedural terms. It was established that criminal prosecution before the decision to notify a person of suspicion is a direct violation of the implementation of the principle of legality, since the person has not acquired the criminal procedural status of a participant, which he actually is at the time of the proceedings, not in form, but in essence, according to the criminal procedural law. It was noted that a person who has not acquired the legal status of a participant in criminal proceedings cannot exercise his «legal» rights, in particular the fundamental right to defense. Attention is drawn to the fact that a general violation of the principle of the legality of criminal proceedings, with the acquisition of relevant grounds and notification to the person of suspicion, the criminal process must comply with another procedure established by law, which is manifested in a clear outline of the legal position of the defense party in criminal proceedings, counting of established procedural terms, etc. It was concluded that the prosecutor, who is the procedural head in a specific criminal proceeding, can supervise the observance of laws during the notification of suspicion, in the form of: a preliminary prosecutor’s counter, by approving the notification of suspicion, revision of previous procedural decisions of the investigator, inquirer, checking at the same time, the validity of the notification of suspicion; personal making of legal decisions at the pre-trial investigation, in particular in the form of notification of suspicion personally by the prosecutor. It was proposed and argued that it would be appropriate to set the time limit for preparation for the defense after notification of suspicion at least 14 days before the completion of the pre-trial investigation in one of the forms provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.

아동 범죄피해자 진술의 증거능력과 헌법상 반대신문권 - 미국법원 판례의 비교법적 고찰

The defendant's right to cross-examine witnesses is established as a constitutional right under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Our criminal procedure law also provides for the right to cross-examine, and the Constitutional Court has determined that this right forms a core part of the constitutional right to a fair trial. However, when the victim of a crime is a child, the issue arises of how to ensure the defendant's right to cross-examination in such cases. This presents a conflict between guaranteeing the defendant's right to cross-examine and protecting the interests of the child victim. It also touches on the issue of the strict application of the hearsay rule versus the recognition of reasonable exceptions. In the United States, various cases have raised issues concerning the protection of child crime victims and the guarantee of the Confrontation Clause under the Sixth Amendment. U.S. case law has addressed controversies in instances where child victims testified using one-way closed-circuit television, or where teachers testified in court about statements made by the child rather than the child testifying directly. Additionally, a recent case in Virginia brought into question the admissibility of forensic interview recordings of a child victim as evidence. In contrast, the Constitutional Court of Korea ruled that a provision of the Sexual Violence Punishment Act, which recognized the admissibility of video statements by sexual violence victims under the age of 19, violated the Constitution by infringing on the defendant's right to cross-examination, which is a core component of the constitutional right to a fair trial. Following this decision, the Sexual Violence Punishment Act was amended to harmonize the defendant's right to cross-examination with the protection of child victims. This paper examines U.S. court rulings on the admissibility of child victim statements, the decisions of the Korean Constitutional Court, and recent amendments to the Sexual Violence Punishment Act. It explores the principles and exceptions concerning the application of the hearsay rule and the right to cross-examination in cases where the victim is a child, as well as rational approaches to the operation of these systems.

형사사법절차의 방해 및 왜곡에 대한 소고 - 조직적 사법방해 및 권력결탁적 법왜곡을 중심으로

The discovery of substantive truth is the purpose and raison d'être of criminal procedure law. However, the end does not necessarily justify all means. Criminal proceedings must be conducted by appropriate and fair means. This requires cooperation between the court, the investigating agency, the suspect and the accused, the defense, and the various parties involved in the criminal proceedings. However, obstruction of justice and perverting the law can make the criminal justice process unfair. Among the types of obstruction of justice, the main issue has been whether to punish false statements by witnesses. There are opposing views on whether a general provision should be introduced to punish obstruction of justice. On the other hand, views are divided on whether it can be introduced on a limited basis. However, it is necessary to punish systematic obstruction of criminal proceedings by making false statements to witnesses, especially in political crimes, corporate crimes, and organized crime. It is also possible for officials who are conducting criminal proceedings to distort the law and undermine fair criminal proceedings. Therefore, there are arguments in academia and the National Assembly to introduce a separate crime of perjury. There is a general consensus among academics that the law should be changed. However, there is a division of opinion on the specific method. Perjury can be used by those in power as a tool to violate the independence of the judiciary. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that those in power, such as high-ranking officials, cannot unduly influence the criminal justice process and distort the law. In addition, prosecutors and judges should not be allowed to distort the law by colluding with those in power. Therefore, even if a crime of distortion of the law is introduced, it is proposed that the penalties should be limited to those who distort the law through the intervention of political power and those who distort the law for political or private interests. It is not advisable for the discussion of obstruction and distortion of the criminal justice process to be rushed into legislation in the midst of political debate. It should be fully debated in the academic realm.

PENERAPAN SYARAT MATERIIL SURAT DAKWAAAN PIDANA PENGEROYOKAN PADA PUTUSAN NOMOR : 813/PID.B/2023/PN.SBY

The Public Prosecutor is responsible for prosecuting, beginning with the reading of the indictment. However, in practice, some indictments do not meet the requirements set out in the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), as seen in Decision Number 813/PID.B/2023/PN.SBY. The research questions are how the indictment for the crime of assault was applied in decision number 813/PID.B/2023/PN.SBY and what are the legal consequences of an inaccurate indictment by the Public Prosecutor in this case, according to KUHAP. This research uses a normative juridical method with a descriptive-analytical approach, relying on secondary data and primary legal materials analyzed qualitatively. The conclusions drawn are that the indictment in Decision Number 813/PID.B/2023/PN.SBY is a cumulative-alternative combination but fails to meet the material requirements of KUHAP. The Public Prosecutor’s negligence in repeating the same article within the indictment reflects a lack of diligence, resulting in a vague indictment that contradicts the principles of criminal procedure law. Such an indictment opens the door for the defense counsel to file an exception, potentially leading to the judge rejecting the indictment and the case being dismissed by law

Komparasi Sistem Pembuktian Hukum Acara Pidana Antara Indonesia Dengan Republik Rakyat Cina

Indonesia regulates its criminal proof system in the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code, while China governs its proof system under the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China. Although both Indonesia and China follow a Civil Law system, there are similarities and differences in their criminal proof systems. This study employs a normative legal research approach with a descriptive-analytical nature, utilizing secondary data analyzed qualitatively and drawing deductive conclusions. The research findings indicate that the similarity between the criminal proof systems of Indonesia and China lies in the presence of proof hearings during the trial process in both countries. The difference is found in the types of evidence admissible in court: Indonesia recognizes five types of evidence, whereas China acknowledges seven types.

К вопросу о признании доказательств недопустимыми в уголовном процессе: экзистенциальный принцип

Any legal procedural form implies compliance with evidence, i.e. their admissibility or validity. Requirements for admissibility vary in different procedural systems. Some accept all information that is not prohibited by special exclusion rules (in most Western countries), while others only accept sources and methods explicitly allowed by criminal procedural law (for example, in Russia). However, both systems have certain common criteria for validity, such as the loyalty of evidence (consistency with leading legal principles and human rights) or their probative value (reliability or sufficient degree of probability). Nevertheless, these criteria are not entirely specific and allow for arbitrary interpretation. A precise principle is needed to determine the admissibility of evidence. As such, it is suggested to consider, firstly, the significance of procedural violations, understood as encroachments on the main (constitutional) principles-maxims of fair (adversarial) proceedings – the principles of equality of parties and independence and impartiality of the court (formal criterion), and secondly, their remediable nature (substantive criterion) – as evidence of the absence of real harmful consequences for the two named principles-maxims.

Kedudukan Hukum Justice Collaborator dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana di Indonesia

Justice collaborators play an important role in law enforcement. The role or function of a justice collaborator includes disclosing a criminal act or the impending occurrence of a criminal act, so that the return of assets resulting from criminal acts can be achieved to the state, providing information to law enforcement officials, providing testimony in the judicial process. The aim of this research is to analyze the legal position of justice collaborators in the criminal justice legal system in Indonesia. This research uses a type of normative juridical research by analyzing primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials. The results of the research are that the legal position of justice collaborator has a very important role in uncovering a well-organized criminal act, or a particular criminal case, so that the suspect or defendant's request to become a justice collaborator must be granted. considered based on the evidence at trial in this case. It is within the judge's authority to grant the justice collaborator's request, because this will affect the sentence. In conclusion, justice collaborators are not regulated in the criminal procedural law book in Indonesia, but are regulated in Law Number 31 of 2014 concerning Protection of Witnesses and Victims, as well as Joint Regulations for Law Enforcement Officials and Witness and Victim Protection Institutions concerning Protection of Witnesses and Victims. Complainant, Reporting Witness and Perpetrator Witness Working Together.

The Existence of Pretrial Institutions In The Enforcement Of Criminal Law

<p class="TableParagraph"><em>Milestone Born Based on the Constitutional Court Decision: 21/PUU-XII/2014 dated April 28, 2015, the authority of the Pretrial institution has increased by conducting an examination of the Investigator's actions in issuing a letter of determination of suspects, searches, and seizures coupled with the legality or absence of arrest and/or detention, termination of investigation or termination of prosecution upon request for the upholding of law and justice, and requests for compensation or rehabilitation. In legal practice, there are several Decisions that do not reflect the implementation of criminal procedure law in accordance with the scope of pretrial and create new authority in pretrial.</em></p><em>The norms of authority in the Criminal Procedure Code provide limitations/limitations that cannot be deviated by law enforcement, if law enforcement exercises its authority not based on laws and regulations, then law enforcement actions can be categorized as unlawful acts. Based on Article 24C paragraph 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia of 1945 (third amendment), the Constitutional Court is a high state institution within the scope of judicial power (judicial) and the authority of the Constitutional Court is one of which is to test the Law against the 1945 Constitution. Suppose a decision that grants the application, has an impact on the invalidity of a norm and does not have binding legal force, then by itself, the decision cannot be separated from the Erga Omnes Principle which has legally binding force on all components of the nation, so all parties must submit and obey the decision ( Syukri Asy'ari, 2013). In legal practice, there are several Decisions that do not reflect the implementation of criminal procedure law in accordance with the scope of pretrial and create new authority in pretrial so that how does pretrial exist in the enforcement of criminal law</em>

PREJUDICE AS A MEANS OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN UKRAINE: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS WITH CONTINENTAL AND COMMON LAW SYSTEMS

Background: During the preparation of the CPC of Ukraine in 2012, the issue of legal regulation regarding the use of prejudice in the process of criminal procedure proof received little scholarly attention. Although much time has passed since then, this subject of discussion remains largely unexplored in textbooks and manuals on criminal procedure published after the adoption of the codified act. Even within the few scholarly investigations dedicated to prejudice in criminal proceedings, a communis opinion doctorum on some issues related to the means of proof has yet to be achieved. This article aims to clarify the concept, formulate its characteristics, uncover the significance of prejudice in Ukraine’s criminal procedure, and distinguish peculiarities of legal regulation and the use of this means of proof in criminal procedure law of countries with continental and general systems of law. Methods: The methodological basis of the article is a dialectical approach to the scientific understanding of social phenomena. In writing this article, general scientific and specialised legal methods of cognition were also used, including analysis, generalisation, structural and functional methods, hermeneutic methods, doctrinal or specialised legal methods, and comparative legal methods. Results and conclusions: It has been found that prejudicial significance is attributed to legal acts that summarise the outcome of criminal procedural activities in specific criminal proceedings. These legal acts include final judgments and rulings of the court and unrevoked decisions of the interrogator, investigator, detective, and prosecutor. Prejudice encompasses not only relevant facts and circumstances but also legal conclusions regarding them. The principleof free evaluation of proof allows the parties to come to different legal conclusions than those made in the previous criminal proceedings, with proper argumentation of their legal position. The use of prejudice in criminal proceedings of civil law jurisdictions is based on the doctrine of res judicata, while in common law systems, it is based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Examples from the criminal procedure of Poland, Greece, Italy, and the USA illustrate the specific features of using this means of proof.

Sexual Gratification as an Expanded Form of Corruption Crime Under Indonesian Positive Law

Along with its development, the category of sexual gratification emerged which received a lot of attention from the public and law enforcement officials. This sexual satisfaction is different from the satisfaction we know in general. The difference lies in the object. Sexual gratification is a form of degrading women's dignity. In Indonesia, sexual gratification has not been explicitly regulated. Therefore, this research will discuss the regulation of sexual gratification based on positive law in Indonesia and the evidence. From the results of the analysis it is known that sexual gratification can be included in the provisions of Article 12 B paragraph 1 of Law 20 of 2001 concerning Amendments to Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning the Eradication of Corruption Crimes. This can be found in the phrase "other facilities" where "facilities" themselves are defined as the means used to facilitate an implementation. Therefore, the use of sexual service facilities with the aim of achieving all desires is the intention of the party providing satisfaction. Proof of the existence of sexual gratification in eradicating corruption in Indonesia is based on criminal procedural law which refers to the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) in Article 184 paragraph (1) and Article 26A of Law Number 20 of 2001 Jo. Law Number 31 of 1999 uses a reverse or balanced evidentiary system where the burden is on the Public Prosecutor and the defendant to provide evidence of the criminal act of sexual gratification for which the defendant is charged.