Previous 32 / 51 Next

59 60 61 62 63 64 I buah kemasan aluminium foil berisi 1 plastik 5.000 59 VL Ekstasi wama merah beilogo VL I plastik 5.000 59 Merab 1 buah kemasan aluminium foil berisi Ekstasi wama merah beilogo VI. I plastik 5.000 60 1 plastik 5.000 60 1 buah kemasan aluminium foil berisi 1 plastik 5.000 61 Ekstasi wama merah berlogo VL 1 plastik 5.000 61 1 buah kemasan aluminium foil berisi 1 plastik 5.000 62 Ekstasi wama merah beilogo VI. 1 plastik 5.000 62 1 buah kemasan aluminium foil berisi 1 plastik 5.000 63 Ekstasi wama merah berlogo VL 1 plastik 5.000 63 1 buah kemasan aluminium foil berisi I plastik 5.000 64 Ekstasi wama merah bedogo VL 1 plastik 5.000 64 - JUMI..AH KESELURUHAN - banwa setelan - pit - 120 ll tersern yang F 600.000 wiriyata ueujuiuiuouu uuv.uuu kwiuouu' ratus ribu) butir pu/tablet dibawa dan diperiksa pada Laboratoris Kriminalistik Kepolisian Republik Indonesia diperoleh dari hash - pemeniksaan sebagaimana sebagaimana tercantum dalam Benita Acara Pemeniksaan Laboratonium Kriminalistik No. Lab :701/KNF/2008 tanggal 12 Maret 2008 disimpulkan bahwa: "Barang bukti tablet yang diperiksa tersebut di atas adalah benar mengandung MDMA dan terdaftar dalam golongan I Nomor Urut 11 Lampiran UU RI No. 5 Tahun 1997 tentang Psikotopika". Perbuatan Terdakwa diatur dan diancam pidana menurut Pasal 59 ayat (1) huruf e Jo. Pasal 59 ayat (2) UU RI No.5 Tahun 1997 tentang Psikotropika. SUBSIDAIR Bahwa ia terdakwa SIEGFRIED METS bersamasama dengan saksi ROBERT MANDAEY, saksi CHEN HAU Yl, saksi ONG TIONG POH, saksi ALEXANDER, saksi WIDYA WARDHANA, saksi TENG TZU CHIANG dan saksi LI VI I-lAO (masing-masing berkas perkaranya diajukan secara terpisah) serta BAHARI alias BONCEL Nb, SANI alias TOMMY, AMA alias NATALIE dan ANA alias FARIDA (masing-masing DPO I belum tertangkap) pada hari selasa tanggal 26 Februari 2008 atau setidak-tidaknya pada waktu - waktu lain dalam bulan Februani 2008 bertempat di Ruko Mutiara Taman Palem Cengkareng Jakarta Barat atau setidak-tidaknya di tempat-tempat lain dalam daerah hukum Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Barat, sebagai yang melakukan, yang menyuruh melakukan atau turut serta melakukan perbuatan, secara tanpa hak memiliki, menyimpan dan/atau membawa psikotropika golongan I berupa 600.000 (enam ratus ribu) butir p11 jenis ekstasi, yang dilakukan dengan cara sebagai berikut: - Bahwa pada tanggal 26 Desember 2007, Terdakwa berangkat dan Belanda dengan menggunakan Pesawat Singapore Airlines menuju Hal. 32 dan 51 hal. Put. No. 1443 K/Pid.Sus/2009

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Siegfried Mets

CASE BRIEF

Jurisdiction

Indonesia

Nationalities

Dutch

Case Title: Siegfried Mets

Age at Offence: 57

Age Group at Offence: Adult (18 to 59)

Gender: Male

Religious Group at Offence: Other

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: Reprieve by Executive

Year when sentenced to Death Row: 2000s: 2008

Method of Execution: Firing/Shooting: Squad

Rights Allegedly Violated

Fair Trial and Due Process: Interpreter

Nature of Offences for Death Penalty

Drug Crime

Case Background (300 words max): Siegfried Mets is a Dutch citizen who sent 600,000 ecstasy pills from the Netherlands to Indonesia, smuggling them through a set of welding tools that were to be delivered to the West Jakarta area. In carrying out his operation, he collaborated with several individuals, but in the end, the shipment was successfully raided and he was arrested by the police.

Siegfried was subsequently detained and underwent legal proceedings up to the cassation level. Both in the trial at the first instance and through the cassation, the panel of judges maintained their decision to sentence Siegfried to the death penalty.

Unfortunately, during the trial, Siegfried did not have access to a translator, thus infringing upon his right to have one. The lack of translation access, or the presence of an inadequate translator, significantly affected the understanding of the parties involved in the case as well as the clarity of the judicial process.

Defence Arguments (200 words max.): The judge of fact at the West Jakarta District Court conducted an examination of the petitioner, who is a Dutch citizen and does not understand Indonesian, without a language interpreter as stipulated in Article 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). The petitioner is a Dutch citizen born in Semarang, temporarily residing in Indonesia, and therefore does not understand Indonesian and is unable to comprehend the content of the examination in court, which is conducted in Indonesian. Article 53 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code states that during investigations and court proceedings, the suspect or defendant is entitled to assistance from a language interpreter at any time, as referred to in Article 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Furthermore, Article 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code states that 'if the defendant or witness does not understand Indonesian, the presiding judge shall appoint an interpreter who takes an oath or makes a promise to accurately translate everything that needs to be translated.' Due to the limitations of using the Indonesian language during the trial process at the West Jakarta District Court, it became difficult for the judge, prosecutor, and defense to uncover the material truth of this case.

Judgement with Headnotes (200 words max): Considering the reasons presented by the petitioner, the Supreme Court holds the view that these reasons cannot be justified, because the judge of fact did not apply the law incorrectly. Moreover, these reasons relate to the assessment of the evidence, which is a matter of appreciation of facts. Such objections cannot be considered in cassation proceedings, as the review at the cassation level only concerns the non-application of a legal rule, or whether the legal rule was not applied correctly, or whether the judicial process was not carried out according to the law, and whether the court exceeded its jurisdiction, as stated in Article 253 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Law No. 8 of 1981).

Therefore, it can be concluded that the panel of judges in this case clearly stated that it was not an error in judicial process when the defendant, who could not understand Indonesian and was facing the death penalty, was not assisted by a translator during the examination.

Legal Representation Received

Trial: Private
Appeal: Private
Pre-trial: Unknown
Second Appeal: Unknown

Legislation Related to the Offence(s): Law Number 5 of 1997 concerning Psychotropics

Case Brief Entry Status: Complete

Language of Case Materials

Bahasa Indonesia

Primary Documents

First Instance Judgement - Siegfried Mets
Indonesian
Download View
Cassation Judgement - Siegfried Mets
Indonesian
Download View
Appeal Judgement - Siegfried Mets
Indonesian
Download View

Death Penalty Defence - Asia

Select target paragraph3

Siegfried Mets

Primary Documents

Notifications