scholarly journals Personal Security Measures. An Analyze of the Albanian Legislation

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 166
Author(s):  
Nikolin Hasani
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Security Measures ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
Coercive Measures ◽  
Personal Security ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court

The personal security measures are directed against the suspected person of the committing a criminal offense depriving of some rights charging him with specific obligations. Referred to Criminal Procedure Code of Republic of Albania personal security measures are divided into coercive measures and prohibitive measures. The Supreme Court by an unifying decision is expressed that [1] Look the decision no.3 date 27 September 2009 of Supreme Court

scholarly journals Personal Security Measures. An Analyze of the Albanian Legislation

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 166
Author(s):  
Nikolin Hasani
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Security Measures ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
Coercive Measures ◽  
Personal Security ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court

The personal security measures are directed against the suspected person of the committing a criminal offense depriving of some rights charging him with specific obligations. Referred to Criminal Procedure Code of Republic of Albania personal security measures are divided into coercive measures and prohibitive measures. The Supreme Court by an unifying decision is expressed that [1] Look the decision no.3 date 27 September 2009 of Supreme Court

scholarly journals BUKTI ELEKTRONIK SEBAGAI ALAT BUKTI YANG SAH DALAM HUKUM ACARA PIDANA / ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE AS AN ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL LAW

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 463
Author(s):  
NFN Ramiyanto
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Independent Evidence ◽  
Electronic Evidence ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Criminal Offenses ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
Functional Equivalent ◽  
Admissible Evidence

KUHAP sebagai hukum acara pidana yang bersifat umum tidak mengakui bukti elektronik sebagai salah satu jenis alat bukti yang sah. Di dalam praktik, bukti elektronik juga digunakan sebagai alat bukti yang sah untuk membuktikan tindak pidana yang terjadi di pengadilan. Dari hasil pembahasan dapat disimpulkan, bahwa bukti elektronik dalam hukum acara pidana berstatus sebagai alat bukti yang berdiri sendiri dan alat bukti yang tidak berdiri sendiri (pengganti bukti surat apabila memenuhi prinsip/dasar dalam functional equivalent approach dan perluasan bukti petunjuk) sebagaimana dicantumkan dalam beberapa undang-undang khusus dan instrumen hukum yang dikeluarkan oleh Mahkamah Agung. Walaupun bukti elektronik tidak diatur dalam KUHAP sebagai lex generalis, namun untuk tercapainya kebenaran materiil dapat juga digunakan sebagai alat bukti yang sah untuk pembuktian seluruh jenis tindak pidana di pengadilan. Hal itu didasarkan pada pengakuan dalam praktik peradilan pidana, beberapa undang-undang khusus, dan instrumen yang dikeluarkan oleh Mahkamah Agung.The Criminal Procedure Code as a general criminal procedure does not recognize electronic evidence as one of the admissible types of evidence. In practice, electronic evidence is also used as an admissible evidence to prove the criminal offenses in court. From the results of the discussion it can be concluded that electronic evidence in criminal procedure law is a dependent evidence and an independent evidence (substitution of letter proof if it meets the principle of functional equivalent approach and expansion of evidence) as specified in several special laws and instruments issued by the Supreme Court. The electronic evidence is not regulated in the Criminal Procedure Code as a lex generalis, however, to achieve material truth it can also be used as a valid evidence for the provision of all types of criminal offenses in court. It is based on recognition in the practice of criminal justice, some special laws, and instruments issued by the Supreme Court.

scholarly journals Referring a Case to the Highest Division of the Supreme Court in the Criminal Procedure Legislation of Ukraine and European Countries

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 143-165
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Uniform Law ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
Court Practice

The article aims to examine one of the elements of the formal mechanism of maintaining court practice unity in criminal proceedings of Ukraine and European countries – referring a case to the highest division of the Supreme Court. Similar to the Ukrainian criminal procedure legislation, the grounds for referring a criminal case and the procedure of its application are provided in the legislation of Estonia, Italy and Lithuania. At the same time, the Ukrainian legislator has established a number of special features, however, the wording of the relevant articles of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine is not perfect. The article provides answers to such questions as how forceful the provisions of criminal procedure legislation of Ukraine are, to what extent of effectiveness the Supreme Court exercises its legal authority regarding the unity of court practice in criminal proceedings, and whether the controversies in legal positions of the structural divisions of the Supreme Court have been successfully avoided. In order to achieve the stated aims, parts 2 and 3 are devoted to the examination of the grounds for referring a case in criminal proceedings of Ukraine and European countries. Part 4 outlines the shortcomings of the content of some articles of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine concerning the procedure of the referral of a criminal case to the highest division of the Supreme Court. Part 5 provides the analysis of the validity of decisions made by the boards of judges at the Supreme Court on the referral of criminal proceedings to its higher judicial divisions – the joint chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court and the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. On the basis of the study of the judgements of boards, the judicial chambers of the Criminal Cassation Court and the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, in part 6 the question is answered on whether the Supreme Court of Ukraine managed to perform its duty on the assurance of court practice unity in such an area as criminal proceedings. Keywords: exclusive legal problem, development of law, formation of uniform law enforcement practice, the Supreme Court, criminal proceedings, Ukraine.

scholarly journals IMPLEMENTASI TUGAS HAKIM PENGAWAS DAN PENGAMAT DALAM PENGAWASAN DAN PENGAMATAN TERHADAP NARAPIDANA (Kajian di Lembaga Pemasyarakatan Klas II A Purwokerto)

2010 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dessy Perdani Yuris PS
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Internal Resistance ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Research Results ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court

The implementation of court judgments needs to be observed and perceived, thus the birth of Supervisor and Observer Judge Institution by Law No. 8 of 1981. The position of a Judge is not simply responsible for imposition of punishment, but also have to responsible for completion of punishment term by inmates in Correctional Institute by appropriate pattern and program of counseling. Besides in article 277 KUHAP till article 288 KUHAP it is charged another task as supervisor and observer of the court decision. The research results show that the implementation of the Supervisory Judge task and Observers in the execution of court decisions in Purwokerto Penitentiary is based on the Criminal Procedure Code Article 277 through Article 283 Criminal Procedure Code, the implementing regulations of the Supreme Court Circular No. RI. No. 7 of 1985. Supervisory Judge in the performance of duties and Observers in Purwokerto Penitentiary still met the constraints that are internal or external, internal resistance from law enforcement and the factors of factor means or facilities. Then the external barriers are the ruling factor.Keywords : Supervisor and Observer Judge, Purwokerto Penitentiary and prisoner

scholarly journals ASPEK HUKUM PENINJAUAN KEMBALI LEBIH DARI SATU KALI DALAM PERKARA PIDANA (PERSPEKTIF PENEGAKAN KEADILAN, KEPASTIAN DAN KEMANFAATAN HUKUM)

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 335
Author(s):  
Budi Suhariyanto
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Aspects ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
State Agencies ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Matters

Constitutional Court Decision No. 34 / PUU-XI / 2013 has opened the space PK is not just one time as provided for by the Article 268 paragraph (3) Criminal Procedure Code so that PK can be done many times during found and submission of PK Novum although it has done previously. Perspective is the basis of this decision is justice. Responding to the verdict of the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court publishes SEMA No. 7 Year 2014 on Reconsideration Request Submission In Criminal Case. Through the SEMA Supreme Court warned that provisions PK only once outside the Article 268 Criminal Procedure Code which was canceled by the Constitutional Court, therefore, PK criminal cases (in a similar case) is more than 1 (one) can not be accepted. Restrictions on the desired PK criminal case the Supreme Court is to provide legal certainty in the process of final settlement of criminal matters. Government through Minister of Law and Human Rights take strategic steps in resolving the legal expediency vision polemic filing legal remedies PK criminal cases, by coordinating state agencies and relevant ministries so as to produce an agreement that filing PK many times can not be executed until the issuance of PP. Therefore still valid set forth in the Judicial Authority Law and the Law on the Supreme Court.Keywords : Legal Aspects, Reconsideration, Criminal Case

scholarly journals DISCUSSION ISSUES OF THE LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLES 314 AND 316 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 877-884
Author(s):  
N.O. Mashinnikova
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Absolute Number ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
State Process ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Simplified Procedures

In this article the author considers the simplified procedures of judicial proceedings from the point of view of their compliance with the basic principles of criminal proceedings, enshrined in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. The article concludes that the race for the economic efficiency of any state process affected the proceedings as well. This was the reason that justice, as a service, was reborn in the state service of justice, which in turn led to a decrease in its quality, which according to the author is expressed not so much in the absence of "cancellations" as in its non-compliance with the principles and purpose enshrined in the criminal procedure code. The author welcomes the initiative of the Plenum of the Supreme Court about the need to adopt measures to decrease the absolute number of criminal cases dealt with in simplified procedures, however, did not agree with the solution proposed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. In author’s opinion, the amendments proposed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation violate the rights of the accused to defense and contradict Article 55 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The author presents her own proposal to change the code of criminal procedure in this part with bringing the necessary justification to that.

scholarly journals Penyelesaian Perkara Pencurian sebagai Tindak Pidana Ringan Pasca Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 2 Tahun 2012

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-24
Author(s):  
Gede Mahadi Waisnawa Hanata Putra ◽  
I Nyoman Putu Budiartha ◽  
Ni Made Sukaryati Karma
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Research Methods ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
East Indies ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
A Minor

Indonesian Criminal Law is currently a legacy from the Dutch East Indies Government which has been adapted and passed by Law No. 16 of 1946 to be implemented nationally. The purpose of this research is to describe the regulation of theft of minor crimes in the Criminal Code before the Supreme Court Regulation Number 2 of 2012 and to describe the juridical consequences of Supreme Court Regulation No.2 of 2012 on theft as a minor criminal act in the Criminal Code. This research uses normative legal research methods. The results show that according to Article 206 of the Criminal Procedure Code, procedures for granting authority to investigate and review cases are carried out by the investigator himself and should not be disturbed by the prosecutor. This Perpres adjusts articles 364, 373, 379, 384, 407 and article 482 of the Criminal Code to Rp. 2,500,000.00. Therefore, fulfill this element of the requirement and enter a case where the value of the commodity does not exceed Rp. 2,500,000.00. Therefore, the case is examined by expedited procedure, which is tried by a judge, and the assignment and review of the case is carried out by the investigator himself without the interference of the prosecutor.

scholarly journals Juridical Analysis of the Acquittal in a Murder Crime

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 29-33
Author(s):  
Chairul Nopriansyah
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
The Public ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court

The judge plays an important role in the judiciary because the judge has the authority to examine, hear and decide on a case so that he is obliged to look for values ​​of justice in the application of progressive and responsive laws, so the judge in issuing decisions must pay attention to various considerations. Article 183 of the Criminal Procedure Code contains several elements of judges' considerations when making decisions. In the case of an acquittal, the judge needs carefulness and carefulness to consider so that a matter must be truly convincing. This research is a doctrinal research method that is taking the opinions of experts regarding free decisions and through legal products in the form of legislation and judges' decisions. The conclusion of this paper is First, the basic consideration of the judge in passing a free verdict (vrijspraak) is not fulfilling the minimum limit of evidence by the public prosecutor so that the judge will release the defendant because the evidence that can blame the defendant is insufficient and based on the elaboration of the writer above, the Supreme Court allows legal efforts to overturn an acquittal (vrijspraak) namely an appeal on an acquittal, but not all verdicts requested for appeal are always accepted by the Supreme Court.

scholarly journals ANALISIS UPAYA HUKUM KASASI OLEH JAKSA PENUNTUT UMUM TERHADAP PUTUSAN BEBAS

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 88-93
Author(s):  
Munarty Munarty ◽  
Marwan Mas ◽  
Ruslan Renggong
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Republic

Secara teori, Jaksa Penuntut Umum (JPU) tidak diperkenankan mengajukan upaya hukum kasasi terhadap vonis bebas sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 244 KUHAP. Namun dalam praktek selama ini, Jaksa Penuntut Umum telah beberapa kali mengajukan kasasi terhadap putusan bebas dan beberapa di antaranya di kabulkan oleh Mahkamah Agung. Hal ini terjadi karena larangan mengajukan kasasi atas vonis bebas sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 244 KUHAP terkesan multitafsir sehingga menimbulkan perbedaan pendapat dalam penerapannya. Kondisi semacam ini sangat berseberangan dengan prinsip-prinsip Negara Hukum, khususnya dalam Upaya mewujudkan kepastian hukum. Atas dasar itulah, Mahkamah Konstitusi melalui putusannya dengan nomor 114/PUU-X/2012 menyatakan bahwa Frasa “kecuali terhadap putusan bebas” sebagaimana tercantum dalam Pasal 244 Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1981 tentang Hukum Acara Pidana (KUHAP) adalah bertentangan dengan UUD Negara Republik Indonesia tahun 1945. Menurut pertimbangan hukum Mahkamah Konstitusi, larangan mengajukan kasasi atau Putusan Bebas oleh Jaksa Penuntut Umum tidak memberikan upaya hukum biasa terhadap putusan bebas serta menghilangkan fungsi Mahkamah Agung sebagai Pengadilan Kasasi terhadap Putusan Bebas, sehingga tidak tercapai kepastian hukum yang adil dan prinsip perlakukan yang sama di hadapan hukum. In theory, public prosecutors (JPU) are not allowed to file a cassation against the acquittal as stipulated in Article 244 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, in practice so far, Public Prosecutors have several times filed an appeal against the acquittal decisions and some of them have been granted by the Supreme Court. This occurs because the prohibition on filing an appeal for an acquittal as stipulated in Article 244 of the Criminal Procedure Code has multiple interpretations, which creates different opinions in its application. This kind of condition is very contrary to the principles of rule of law, especially in the effort to create legal certainty. On that basis, the Constitutional Court through its decision number 114 / PUU-X / 2012 stated that the phrase "except for free decisions" as contained in Article 244 of Law Number 8 Year 1981 concerning Criminal Procedure Law (KUHAP) is contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. According to the legal considerations of the Constitutional Court, the prohibition against filing an appeal or Free Decision by Public Prosecutors does not provide ordinary remedies against free decisions and eliminates the function of the Supreme Court as a Cassation Court against Free Decisions, so that fair legal certainty is not achieved and the principle of equal treatment in the law.

scholarly journals EKSISTENSI PERSIDANGAN ONLINE DITENGAH PANDEMI COVID19 DALAM PERKARA PIDANA DI INDONESIA

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 320
Author(s):  
Hanafi Hanafi ◽  
Muhammad Syahrial Fitri ◽  
Fathan Ansori
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
Two Alternatives

Following the background, the problems in this study are, first, the mechanism for implementing procedural law in E-Court for criminal cases in Indonesia, secondly how E-Court accommodates the process of proof in criminal cases in Indonesia. The method used in this research is pure legal research, which refers to and bases on legal norms and principles, applicable laws and regulations, legal theories and doctrines, jurisprudence, and other literature that are relevant to the topic. The results of this study are, firstly, the mechanism for implementing E-Court procedural law is regulated in the Supreme Court Regulation 4/2020 on the Administration and Trial of Criminal Cases in Electronic Courts provides 2 (two) alternatives for conducting trials in criminal cases, namely Normal Courts and Electronic Courts. Such matters are not previously regulated in the Criminal Procedure Code or other procedural regulations. Second, concerning the process of proofing evidence in criminal cases in E-Court still follows the provisions of the normal criminal procedure law and has the same value or power of evidence as normal trials.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document