Previous 13 / 16 Next

-1 (satu) helai baju milik korban RENDI HIDAYAT; Dikembalikan kepada ahli waris korban RENDI HIDAYAT; 5. Membebankan biaya perkara kepada Negara; t Menimbang, bahwa terhadap putusan peradilan Tingkat Pertama tersebut Terdakwa telah menyatakan banding dihadapan Panitera/Sekretaris Pengadilan Negeri Siak Sri Indrapura pada tanggal 12 Februari 2015, sebagaimana Akta Permintaan Banding Nomor 02/Akta.Pid/2015/PN.Sak, dan permintaan banding tersebut telah diberitahukan kepada Penuntut Umum pada tanggal 16 Februari 2015 sebagaimana Akta Pemberitahukan Banding Nomor 2/Akta.Pid/ 201 5/PN.Sak; Menimbang, bahwa terhadap putusan peradilan Tingkat Pertama tersebut Penuntut Umum telah menyatakan banding dihadapan Panitera/Sekretaris Pengadilan Negeri Siak Sri Indrapura pada tanggal 16 Februari 2015, sebagaimana Akta Permintaan Banding Nomor 2LAkta.Pid/2015IPN.Sak, dan permintaan banding tersebut telah diberitahukan Terdakwa pada tanggal 16 Februari 2015 sebagaimana Akta fleritahukan Banding Nomor 2/Akta.Pid/ 201 5/PN.Sak; Menimbang, bahwa sehubungan dengan permintaan banding tersebut 14 t 0F5 3 X.tjdakwa tidak mengajukan memori banding, sedangkan Penuntut Umum telah '8Z7 4- %/t&27t 1thengajukan Memori Banding pada tanggal 02 Maret 2015 yang diterima di t/• Kepaniteraan Pengadilan Negeri Siak Sri Indrapura pada tanggal 2 Maret 2015, dan Memori Banding tersebut telah diberitahukan dan diserahkan kepada Terdakwa sebagaimana Akta Penyerahan Memori Banding tanggal 2 Maret - 2015 Nomor o2/Akta.Pid/2015/rN.Sak; Menimbang, bahwa sebelum berkas perkara dikirim ke Pengadilan Tinggi Pekanbaru, Panitera Pengadilan Negeri Siak Sri Indrapura telah memberikan - kesempatan yang cukup untuk mempelajari berkas perkara kepada Penuntut Umum dan kepada Terdakwa pada tanggal 27 Februari 2015 masing-masing - dengan surat Nomor W4-U13/288/HN.01.11/II/2015 dan surat Nomor W4Ui 31289/HN.O1 .11/11/2015; Menimbang, bahwa permintaan pemeriksaan dalam tingkat banding yang diajukan oleh Terdakwa dan Penuntut Umum masih dalam tenggang waktu dan Hal 13 dari 16 Hal Pts.Na33/Pid 8/2015/P TPBR

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Dita Desmala Sari Binti Suheri

CASE BRIEF

Jurisdiction

Indonesia

Nationalities

Indonesian

Case Title: Dita Desmala Sari Binti Suheri

Age at Offence: 18

Age Group at Offence: Minor (Below 18)

Gender: Female

Religious Group at Offence: Islam

Vulnerable/ Marginalised Group

Juvenile

Jurisdiction - Geolocation

Latitude: -6.293782809685137

Longitude: 106.84001863002779

Jurisdiction - Geolocation (linked CASE BRIEF): Indonesia

Contributing TRP Partner

Institute for Criminal Justice and Reform (Indonesia)

Latest Country's Death Penalty Status

Retentionist

Case Current Status: Closed: Commuted

Year when sentenced to Death Row: 2010s: 2015

Method of Execution: Firing/Shooting: Squad

Rights Allegedly Violated

Fair Trial and Due Process: Competency to stand trial
Fair Trial and Due Process: Excessive and disproportionate punishment
Fair Trial and Due Process: Right to adequate legal representation at all stages

Nature of Offences for Death Penalty

Murder: Multiple Victims

Case Background (300 words max): In 2015, the death penalty was handed down to a minor girl named Dita Desmala Sari at 17 years and 8 months. In fact, based on Indonesian law, which is regulated by Law No. 11 of 2012 concerning the Juvenile Criminal Justice System ("Children's Law"), a child who at the time of the crime did not reach the age of 18 years cannot be subject to the death penalty. In December 2012 Dita married Muhammad Delfi (18 years old). For the sake of the immune science inherited by her father, Delfi forced Dita to murder several male victims to be cut and taken from their genitals. When Dita refused Delfi's orders, she was threatened with murder, so she was forced to commit murder.

Dita and Delfi were arrested by the police because they were reported by one of the victim's parents named Rendi Hidayat. Both are undergoing legal proceedings with separate files. During the trial, Dita was never accompanied by legal counsel. He knew that he was provided with a lawyer, but he didn't know who his legal counsel was. Dita has never spoken or been interviewed by her legal counsel. When the trial took place, the legal counsel only listened to the course of the trial without providing a defense. Dita was not informed by her legal counsel of her right to defend herself. Dita's trial continued without any defense, without any counterarguments filed by legal counsel, without examining witnesses who could mitigate Dita's case, and without the reading of the pleidoi or written defense by legal counsel

Dita was charged and prosecuted with a life sentence, but the panel of judges then sentenced Dita to the death penalty both in the first stage and appeal stage. Then after submitting a case review, the sentence has been commuted into 10 years of imprisonment and in late 2024 she has been released.

Defence Arguments (200 words max.): At the trial, Dita was never defended by legal counsel. During the trial, the legal counsel also did not provide a defense and only listened to the trial. Dita was also not provided with information by her legal counsel regarding her right to self-defense. Dita's trial was carried out without a defense agenda, there was no exception submitted by legal counsel, there was no mitigating witness examination process for Dita and there was no agenda for reading the plea or written defense from legal counsel. During the case review process, ICJR submitted defense argument stating that Dita was still underage when committed the alleged crime and therefore couldn't be the subject of death penalty and should be tried under juvenile justice system. Besides, considering her situation when she became the victim of gender-based violence during her underaged married life was also submitted as defense argument.

Judgement with Headnotes (200 words max): Regarding the penalty to be imposed on the defendant, the Panel of Judges disagrees with the Prosecutor's demand and provides the consideration that the defendant, at the time of attempting to kill the victims, was indeed unaware of the witness Delfi's intent or plan to kill the victims. However, in this case, the defendant did not intervene or stop Delfi's intent. Despite the threat from Delfi, the defendant remained silent and continued with the killings by strangling the victims.

No one in this world has the right to end the life of another human being for any legal, state, or other reason. The death penalty in Indonesia is still upheld, meaning it is constitutional. This is because, in certain circumstances, the death penalty is still necessary for the tranquility and comfort of society as well as for justice. It is deemed appropriate and reasonable for those who commit brutal crimes or those that may cause chaos and harm to many people to receive the death penalty.

As for the aggravating factors in the defendant's sentence, the defendant's actions were very cruel and inhumane, causing unrest and anxiety within the community. The defendant's actions resulted in the loss of three (3) lives.

Legal Representation Received

Trial: State Legal Aid
Appeal: State Legal Aid
Pre-trial: Unknown

Legislation Related to the Offence(s): Criminal Code

Case Brief Entry Status: Complete

Language of Case Materials

Bahasa Indonesia

Is the case brief featured?: Yes

Primary Documents

Putusan PN Dita Desmala Sari.pdf
Indonesian
Download View
NO. 35_PID.B_2015_PT.PBR.pdf
Indonesian
Download View

Death Penalty Defence - Asia

Select target paragraph3

Dita Desmala Sari Binti Suheri

Primary Documents

Notifications