Due Process Research Articles (Page 1)

The article addresses 'hash' function as a tool to ensure digital data integrity, examining its foundations, limitations and application in the context of the chain of custody for digital evidence. Despite the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, constant technological innovations present challenges due to the intangible and volatile nature of digital evidence, which also complicates the standardization and regulation of collection and preservation processes. From an interdisciplinary perspective, the 'hash' function could be used as an effective technique for verifying the integrity of digital data, but it is not infallible, subject to limitations due to advancements in encryption technology and the risk of obsolescence of certain protocols. The article demonstrates inconsistencies and divergences in precedents on the topic, highlighting the need for a balance between using these tools and maintaining critical oversight of their application in the judicial context. It concludes that, despite its limitations, the 'hash' code remains a valuable tool but must be applied with technical rigor and specialized knowledge, ensuring the reliability of digital evidence without compromising due process.

Introduction: This paper thoroughly examines the conceptual and legal distinctions between crown witnesses and justice collaborators within the Indonesian criminal law framework, as well as their ramifications for the concepts of fair trial and the human rights of defendants.Purposes of the Research: This paper aims to thoroughly analyze the legal status, normative foundation, and implications of using these two groups of witnesses within the framework of procedural justice for defendants.Methods of the Research: This research employs normative legal methodologies, utilizing an analytical approach to positive law, Supreme Court jurisprudence, and relevant human rights concepts.Findings of the Research: The research indicates that the crown witness, stemming from prosecution case-splitting, often violates the principle of non-self-incrimination and undermines the rights of the accused. Conversely, justice collaborators, governed by Supreme Court Circular Letter Number 4 of 2011, adhere to due process of law by voluntary collaboration and a precise legislative framework. The study's novelty is in its comparative analysis that distinctly differentiates these two often-confused processes by including doctrinal interpretation and human rights views. This study addresses a deficiency in previous research, which has seldom investigated their normative convergence, and advocates for a more cohesive, rights-based framework for managing offenders within Indonesia's criminal justice system.

The concept of illicit enrichment refers to a significant increase in a public official’s assets that cannot be reasonably explained in relation to their lawful income. As a legal instrument, illicit enrichment has been adopted in various jurisdictions to complement traditional anti-corruption measures, especially when proving the predicate offenses is difficult due to the sophisticated methods used to conceal corrupt practices. In Indonesia, despite the country’s commitment to combat corruption, the legal framework has yet to formally accommodate the concept of illicit enrichment as a standalone offense. This paper explores the potential of incorporating illicit enrichment into Indonesia’s anti-corruption regime by examining international practices, legal principles, and potential human rights concerns, particularly the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof. The analysis indicates that with proper safeguards, illicit enrichment provisions can be aligned with due process and serve as an effective tool in curbing unexplained wealth accumulation among public officials. The study also highlights the challenges Indonesia may face, including legislative reform, institutional readiness, and the need for public acceptance. Nevertheless, the integration of illicit enrichment into national law is not only a legal necessity but also a moral imperative in strengthening public accountability and restoring public trust. This paper concludes that a balanced and rights-respecting approach to illicit enrichment could significantly enhance the effectiveness of Indonesia’s anti-corruption framework.

This article examines specialized interviewing as both a protective tool and a means of evidence in Administrative Disciplinary Proceedings at the Instituto Federal Catarinense (IFC), aimed at investigating sexual misconduct involving underage students. The study focuses on balancing revictimization prevention with the guarantees of due process, particularly the rights to a full defense and adversarial proceedings. Adopting a qualitative approach that includes normative, doctrinal, and case law analysis, as well as a case study, it explores the IFC experience in implementing a technical protocol involving institutional psychologists, a protected environment, and audiovisual recording. The findings indicate that, when legal parameters are observed, the interview is valid, protects the victim, and strengthens the evidentiary body without infringing on the rights of the accused. Recognized by the Judiciary and supported by a technical note from the Office of the Comptroller General (Controladoria-Geral da União), the practice emerges as a viable model for other Federal Educational Institutions.

For decades, courts have grappled with the tension between compensating victims of mass harms and maintaining fairness to defendants when causation is difficult to prove. This Article argues that the Supreme Court’s due process jurisprudence provides a relevant framework for navigating this tension. We contend that the Court over the last three decades has established a consistent Fourteenth Amendment due process approach in punitive damages and personal jurisdiction cases, which is rooted in antecedents tracing to the nineteenth century and relies on a nexus of interests that balances individual rights, state interests, and federalism concerns. This framework, we argue, has significant implications for evaluating the constitutionality of state tort doctrines like market-share liability and innovator liability, which challenge traditional notions of causation. Our analysis reveals that these doctrines may be vulnerable in some applications to constitutional challenge under the Court’s modern due process approach. We trace the evolution of the Court’s jurisprudence, demonstrating how it emphasizes the relationship between a plaintiff’s harm, a defendant’s conduct, and the forum state’s interest. Applying this framework to market-share and innovator liability, we suggest that tort causation itself may have constitutional dimensions. This finding has far-reaching implications for mass tort litigation and could reshape how courts approach cases involving multiple actors and attenuated chains of causation. By bridging the gap between due process jurisprudence and tort law, this Article offers a new perspective on longstanding debates about liability in complex cases and provides a roadmap for courts navigating these challenging waters.

Job loss is a major collateral consequence of pretrial detention. It frequently results from even short periods of detention and can have cascading and long term effects on income, housing security, family stability, and likelihood of incarceration—all despite the fact that people in pretrial detention are entitled to a presumption of innocence and indeed may never be found guilty of an offense. Given existing racial disparities in arrests, bail determinations, and bail amounts, job loss from pretrial detention further drives racial inequalities in employment and income. While job loss from pretrial detention inflicts substantial social harms and undermines due process, current policy solutions, such as ban-the-box laws, fail to address it. This Article proposes a novel solution, reframing the issue as a matter of protected leave rather than traditional employment discrimination law, and drawing on the unexpected source of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (“USERRA”). USERRA guarantees deployed service members a right to reemployment upon return from tours of duty. This Article proposes a similar right to reemployment for people released from pretrial detention whose charges are still pending or have resulted in a disposition other than conviction, subject to certain limitations present in USERRA and potential carve-outs for certain charges or job types. Eighty years of experience under USERRA and its predecessors demonstrate that a right to reemployment is practicable for employers and an effective mechanism to ensure job stability during periods of often sudden and unpredictable leave. Such a right would promote fundamental, widely held due process values and counteract the substantial social harms of job loss from pretrial detention.

The persistent and unique threat posed by the Negara Islam Indonesia (NII) network, characterized by its long-term strategy of societal infiltration and the establishment of a parallel state, demands specific and adaptive law enforcement strategies. This article, which adopts a qualitative descriptive-analytical research method, examines the various legal and operational approaches employed by Indonesian law enforcement agencies in countering the NII. The analysis focuses on the application of existing laws, including anti-terrorism legislation and other relevant criminal codes, to address the NII’s distinct activities that often fall outside the conventional understanding of terrorism. The paper also investigates the intelligence-gathering techniques, surveillance methods, and arrest procedures utilized to target NII cells and leadership, considering the challenges posed by the network’s decentralized and clandestine nature. Furthermore, it evaluates the effectiveness and legality of these law enforcement strategies, exploring issues related to due process, human rights, and the potential for overreach. By analyzing specific cases and broader trends, this research aims to provide a critical assessment of the current law enforcement response to the NII in Indonesia, highlighting both successes and areas for improvement in addressing this complex and enduring security challenge.

ABSTRACT This study aimed to analyze the legality of using artificial intelligence-based facial recognition technology in criminal investigations in light of fundamental rights, considering that technological innovations are integrated into criminal investigations. The methodological procedures used to guide this research were through a qualitative approach with an exploratory and descriptive objective, including a literature review of legal doctrines on facial recognition, in order to relate the methods to the research problem. Data collection was based on books, scientific articles, master’s dissertations, and doctoral theses, accessed through the following database platforms: Science Direct, SciELO, and Google Scholar. The results indicated that the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and facial recognition (FR) in criminal investigations represents a significant technological advancement for the justice system, promoting speed and efficiency in police and judicial actions. However, these technological innovations raise significant and serious concerns regarding the protection of fundamental rights, especially regarding privacy, the presumption of innocence, and due process. Recent rulings by the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) have shown that the misuse of facial recognition without proper legal procedures can result in judicial errors and rights violations. Therefore, it is concluded that the applicability of technological innovations in criminal investigations must be guided by rigorous ethical, technical, and legal criteria, utilizing control mechanisms, human oversight, and regulations. This highlights that the balance between investigative efficiency and respect for human rights is crucial for Artificial Intelligence’s responsible and fair contribution to the criminal justice system. Keywords: Technological innovations. Facial recognition. Criminal investigation. Fundamental rights.

In the contemporary era, the rapid advancement of science and technology, along with the ongoing digital transformation, has exerted a profound influence across all domains of social life, including the legal sciences. Legal technology (LegalTech) is a relatively new concept that has been conceptualized and interpreted in various ways within academic and professional discourse. This article explores several theoretical and practical approaches to legal technology, analyzes its positive impacts as well as potential risks to legal science, and, on that basis, proposes policy and research implications for Vietnam. The integration of technology into legal systems represents a paradigm shift in how law is practiced, interpreted, and even created. LegalTech encompasses a wide range of technological tools and methodologies designed to automate, optimize, and innovate legal processes. These include data analytics for case prediction, natural language processing for legal document review, blockchain-based smart contracts, and artificial intelligence (AI) systems used to support judicial decision-making. In a broader sense, legal technology not only serves as a mechanism for efficiency but also functions as a transformative force that challenges traditional notions of legal reasoning, professional ethics, and human agency in the administration of justice (Susskind, 2019). The global expansion of LegalTech has been accelerated by the increasing demand for access to justice, transparency, and cost efficiency in legal services. In many countries, especially those undergoing digital transformation, LegalTech has become a cornerstone of reform efforts aimed at simplifying procedures, improving public trust in legal institutions, and facilitating international integration (Vinogradova, 2023). For example, the United States and the United Kingdom have witnessed the proliferation of automated legal advice platforms and online dispute resolution systems, while civil law jurisdictions such as Russia and Vietnam are exploring the digitization of normative legal acts and the potential use of AI in legislative drafting. However, the emergence of LegalTech also raises important theoretical and ethical questions. Scholars debate whether the increasing reliance on AI could undermine core legal principles such as fairness, accountability, and due process (Surden, 2020). Algorithmic decision-making, while efficient, may lack transparency and be vulnerable to bias, particularly when trained on incomplete or unbalanced data sets. Moreover, the introduction of LegalTech disrupts traditional legal education and professional formation, requiring future jurists to acquire interdisciplinary skills in technology, data management, and cybersecurity. In Vietnam, LegalTech remains an underexplored but promising field. The country’s growing emphasis on e-governance and digital transformation provides a favorable environment for its development. Nevertheless, challenges persist in areas such as fragmented legal databases, limited institutional capacity, and the need for clear regulatory frameworks governing the ethical and technical standards of LegalTech applications. Against this backdrop, this paper argues that Vietnam should adopt a strategic approach that combines comparative research, institutional capacity-building, and legislative modernization. By examining the experiences of countries such as Russia, the United Arab Emirates, Brazil, and the United States, this study highlights both the opportunities and challenges of integrating technology into legal processes. Legal technology, if developed responsibly, can enhance the coherence, transparency, and accessibility of the legal system. Yet it simultaneously demands careful policy design, interdisciplinary research collaboration, and ongoing public oversight to ensure that the human dimension of law is not lost in the pursuit of technological progress.

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in legal practice creates the «black box» problem, where opaque models challenge the principles of due process. This opacity conflicts with the right to a reasoned and contestable decision. This article investigates the fundamental gap between the technical explanations provided by modern XAI methods (like LIME, SHAP) and the normative justifications required by the doctrine of due process. The goal is to critically evaluate XAI’s limitations and, based on these findings, to formulate a new standard for transparency in legal AI. The study is based on a comprehensive application of legal and scientific methods, including comparative-legal and formal-logical analysis. This approach was used to examine the interplay between AI technology and legal doctrines, analyzing legal acts and scientific works to identify inconsistencies between technical explanations and legal requirements. The article demonstrates that popular post-hoc XAI methods are fundamentally insufficient for legal needs. They generate unstable technical approximations of a model’s behavior, not legally meaningful justifications. These explanations can be unreliable and create a “Rashomon effect” (multiple contradictory explanations for one outcome), making the right to an effective appeal illusory. The law requires justification, not just explanation. The article proposes a new standard: «Justifiable AI» (JAI). This concept shifts focus from explaining opaque models to designing inherently interpretable hybrid systems that combine rule-based components with data-driven models. Future research should focus on developing JAI architectures, creating legal certification standards, and studying user trust in such systems.

This article analyzes the role of the Instituto Médico Legal (IML) of Manaus as a key institution in the production of technical evidence for criminal justice, particularly in cases involving material traces. Based on Articles 158 to 184 of the Brazilian Code of Criminal Procedure, the study highlights the importance of official forensic expertise in ensuring due process and balancing the rights of victims and defendants. Despite its institutional relevance, the IML faces significant challenges, including staff shortages, inadequate infrastructure, and outdated technology, which hinder the quality and timeliness of forensic reports. The research combines direct observation, public data, and testimonies from professionals to reveal the urgent need for improvements. Proposed measures include process modernization, professional development for forensic experts, and the expansion of services to remote areas of the state. The study concludes that strengthening the IML is essential for a more effective and evidence-based criminal justice system and should be prioritized in public policy agendas.

This research aims to analyze the regulatory implications and institutional complexities of dormant account blocking policies implemented by Indonesia's Financial Intelligence Unit (Pusat Pelaporan dan Analisis Transaksi Keuangan - PPATK) within the Indonesian banking system, focusing on regulatory harmonization, institutional coordination, and the balance between anti-money laundering enforcement effectiveness and customers' fundamental rights protection. This study employs a normative juridical method with conceptual and comparative approaches toward international regulatory frameworks. Primary data comprises anti-money laundering legislation, banking regulations, and consumer protection laws. Secondary data was collected through systematic literature studies of 50 academic publications from the 2022-2025 period indexed in Scopus Q1-Q3 and Web of Science, alongside analysis of international regulatory practices, Master’s Thesis and Doctor Philoshopy. Data analysis was conducted qualitatively using legal interpretation techniques and gap analysis between normative provisions and practical implementation. Research findings reveal five primary regulatory problems: (1) absence of firm legal definitions regarding dormant accounts in Indonesia's regulatory framework; (2) authority imbalance between PPATK under Law No. 8 of 2010 and procedural due process principles; (3) coordination disharmony among supervisory institutions (PPATK, Financial Services Authority, and Bank Indonesia) creating regulatory overlap; (4) regulatory impacts on financial inclusion and banking service accessibility; and (5) urgent need for regulatory frameworks integrating financial privacy protection under Law No. 27 of 2022.. This research provides theoretical contributions to banking law dogmatics development regarding balanced regulatory approaches between financial supervision functions and consumer protection. Practically, these findings serve as blueprints for responsive regulatory reform integrating anti-money laundering effectiveness with strengthened procedural safeguards, graduated response system implementation, and development of harmonious institutional coordination mechanisms.

We examine how constituents strategically frame their opposition to proposed accounting standards, specifically in the context of preparers’ opposition to the one-statement presentation format for other comprehensive income (OCI). We use the notion of frame resonance to interpret their opposition expressed in comment letters sent in response to three OCI-related proposed standards. We find that preparers mobilised what we call ‘standard-setting defects’ arguments to oppose the requirement to use the one-statement format and convince the IASB to allow the use of the two-statement approach. Economic consequence arguments do not prevail as preparers hold a mirror to the IASB, asserting that the one-statement approach breaks from current understandings, does not meet users’ needs, arises without due process, and is misaligned with the spirit of the conceptual framework. Mobilising ‘standard-setting defects’ is not meant to inform the standard setter of genuinely held beliefs but is more intended to resonate with the IASB. This finding offers a novel way to make sense of communications in standard-setting debates, viewing the consultation process as an arena where constituents problematise the very raison d’être of standard setters by criticising them for not conforming to their own mission, conceptual views, legitimate procedures and societal expectations.

The advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology ideally strengthens the criminal justice system by enhancing effectiveness, efficiency, and accuracy in the process of evidence examination. AI can process large volumes of data and assist law enforcement in systematically identifying crime patterns. However, in reality, Indonesia’s legal system still adheres to conventional evidentiary paradigms as stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) and the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (UU ITE), which have not yet explicitly recognized AI-based evidence. This condition raises issues of validity, accountability, and legal fairness, particularly because AI-generated outputs lack legal subjects that can be held responsible and are vulnerable to algorithmic bias. This study aims to analyze the validity of AI-based evidence within Indonesia’s criminal justice system through a normative legal study employing statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches. The findings reveal a significant legal vacuum in the regulation of AI evidence, resulting in uncertainty and potential human rights violations. Therefore, legal reform is necessary through amendments to the UU ITE, the formulation of technical guidelines via Supreme Court Regulations (PERMA), and the strengthening of law enforcement capacity to ensure that AI utilization aligns with the principles of justice, transparency, and due process of law in a modern judicial system.

Telepresence hearings in Labor Courts gained prominence during the COVID-19 pandemic, bringing benefits such as procedural celerity, cost reduction, and expanded access to justice. However, challenges persist regarding digital inequality, unstable internet connections, and limitations in oral evidence production, especially in Porto Velho-RO, a municipality marked by socioeconomic and structural disparities. This study addresses the effectiveness of telepresence hearings in Labor Courts and aims to evaluate their benefits and challenges, verifying whether this procedural modality complies with the principles of adversarial proceedings, full defense, and due process of law. The research adopts a qualitative approach, with exploratory and descriptive purposes, based on bibliographic and documentary analysis, as well as a case study of the 14th Regional Labor Court. The dialectical method was employed to confront favorable and critical perspectives on this practice. It is concluded that, although telepresence hearings represent progress in terms of efficiency and cost-effectiveness, their effectiveness depends on digital inclusion, standardized procedures, and adequate technological infrastructure, in order to reconcile innovation with the preservation of fundamental rights.

This study aims to analyze and compare the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) and the Draft Criminal Procedure Code (RKUHAP) in the context of human rights protection within criminal justice processes in Indonesia. The research employs a qualitative approach using library research methods, focusing on statutory analysis, legal documents, and relevant academic literature. The findings reveal that KUHAP still shows significant limitations in ensuring comprehensive human rights protection, particularly regarding the right to legal counsel from the early stage of investigation, prohibition of torture, and protection of crime victims. In contrast, RKUHAP introduces substantial normative reforms by reinforcing the principles of due process of law and fair trial, aligning with international human rights instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The study concludes that RKUHAP represents a crucial step toward a more just, humane, and human rights–oriented criminal justice system. However, its practical effectiveness largely depends on the readiness of law enforcement institutions and the broader legal culture within Indonesian society.

The death of a corruption suspect before a final and legally binding court judgment creates a fundamental juridical paradox that paralyzes the Indonesian criminal justice system. On one hand, the state loses its instruments for recovering losses due to its reliance on the conviction-based asset forfeiture paradigm. On the other hand, seized assets are trapped in a state of uncertainty, injuring the public’s sense of justice while simultaneously threatening the civil rights of the heirs. This research aims to analyze this normative vacuum (rechtsvacuüm) critically and, as its culmination, to formulate a concrete, implementable legal reconstruction of law as it ought to be (ius constituendum). Using a normative legal research method grounded in statutory, conceptual, and critical comparative approaches, this study finds that the current juridical dead end is at odds with Radbruch’s three basic legal values: justice, certainty, and utility. As a solution, this research proposes a paradigm shift toward the NCB asset forfeiture model, operationalized through a procedural blueprint in the form of a special civil lawsuit. Based on a critical synthesis of international practices, a hybrid model is designed—termed the “Civil-Based Asset Status Examination”—which adopts the flexibility of the civil law tradition while strictly guaranteeing due process of law. The final result is a concrete normative formulation capable of reconciling the state’s interest in asset recovery with the protection of human rights, while simultaneously offering a progressive step in the renewal of criminal procedure law in Indonesia.

In financing practices in Indonesia, fiduciary guarantees play a crucial role for both creditors and debtors. However, their implementation often creates inequality because the determination of default is made unilaterally by the creditor. Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 presents a new interpretation that emphasizes justice, legal protection for debtors, and the importance of the judicial process. The purpose of this study is to understand the impact of this shift in the interpretation of default on the validity and implementation of fiduciary guarantees in financing practices in Indonesia, as well as to analyze the legal considerations of Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 regarding the validity of execution and legal protection for creditors and debtors. This study uses a normative juridical methodology with a statutory and conceptual approach. Data were collected through a literature review of legal norms, Constitutional Court decisions, scientific doctrines, legal writings, and supplemented with secondary data from the Financial Services Authority (OJK) and the Indonesian Financing Companies Association (APPI). The results of the study indicate more specifically that after the issuance of Constitutional Court Decision No. Based on Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019, there was a 35% decrease in reports of disputes over the execution of fiduciary guarantees in district courts during the 2020–2023 period, reflecting increased compliance by financing institutions with the principle of due process of law. Determination of default can no longer be made unilaterally by creditors, but must be done through a fair and proportional legal mechanism. This decision strengthens legal protection for debtors, affirms the principle of due process of law, and requires system adjustments by financing institutions, thus making an important contribution to civil law reform, particularly in the implementation of fairer, more equal, and constitutional fiduciary guarantees in Indonesia.

ABSTRACT In 1969, Armstrong State College suspended Professor W. Haynes Dyches after he was arrested in his classroom for allegedly sharing The Great Speckled Bird, an underground newspaper out of Atlanta, with young men in Savannah, Georgia. The criminal charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor was eventually dropped after courts ruled that The Great Speckled Bird did not constitute obscene material. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) alleged that Armstrong had violated the professor’s academic freedom by neglecting due process. The AAUP’s investigation revealed that Professor Dyches was fired because he was a member of Students for a Democratic Society and he was believed to have invited young men to his apartment. The AAUP added Armstrong to the organization’s censure list in 1972. The censure lasted a little over 10 years as Armstrong State College’s president, Harry Ashmore, refused to meet the AAUP’s conditions. Based on archival research in the Armstrong archives, the AAUP collections at George Washington University, local and student newspapers, and oral history interviews with Armstrong students and faculty, this case study illuminates the ways in which communities used Cold War moral panics about communists, gays, and lesbians to limit academic freedom and achieve political conformity in public higher education in the South during the “long Sixties.”

This study aims to investigate the application of positivist theory in law enforcement cases involving the termination of employment for Outsourced Workers. Disputes between Workers and Employers are inevitable in the world of work. In this case, workers, including outsourced workers, cannot be treated arbitrarily or terminated without due process of law. However, in the field, termination of employment occurs before the contract period expires by offering to become a "partner." The outsourcing company obscures its obligation to pay the remaining salary for the contract period and the rights that workers should receive due to the termination of employment by the service user company. Therefore, law enforcement against workers is necessary to protect their rights, as stipulated in labor laws and regulations. The research method employed in this paper is normative legal research, which involves collecting legal sources through literature to address the problems raised in this study. It includes research on Court Decision Number 15/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2022/PN.Smg jo. Decision Number 1427K/Pdt.Sus/2022, which is an example of legal remedies for justice seekers in cases of unlawful acts committed by outsourcing service providers.