Previous 34 / 51 Next

— Bahwa pada tanggal 27 Januari 2008, Terdakwa menerima telepon dan BAHARI alias BONCEL NIO dan menyuruh Terdakwa datang ke toko buah milik BAHARI alias BONCEL NIO di Perumahab Taman Palem Cengkareng Jakarta Barat, untuk mengambil kunci ruko (rumah toko) yang akan dipakai menyimpan barang kiriman tersebut, sesuai dan permintaan dari BAHARI alias BONCEL NIO tersebut, Terdakwa lalu berangkat ke Perumahan Taman Palem dan ketika sampal di toko buah yang dimaksud, seonahg mendekati Terdakwa dan menyerahkan I (satu) buah kunci ruko berikut alamat ruko yang dimaksud yaltu Ruko Permata Taman Palem Blok D No. 35 Cengkareng Jakarta Barat, setelah itu Terdakwa pergi melihat lokasi atau meninjau keadaan ruko tersebut namun hanya melihat dari luar; Bahwa pada tanggal 28 Januani 2008 Terdakwa bersama ROBERT MANDAEY dengan menggunakan Mobil Daihatsu Terios No. Pol. B 255 VM berangkat ke Hotel Mercure untuk menjemput SANI alias TOMMY dengan maksud melihat Ruko Permata Taman Palem Blok D No. 35 Cengkareng; Bahwa pada sekitan jam 12.00 Wib, Terdakwa bersama ROBERT MANDAEY berangkat ke alamat ruko yang dimaksud dan diikuti oleh SANI alias TOMMY yang menggunakan Mobil Toyota Kijang Innova No. Pol. D 1268 ZY yang dikemudikan oleh saksi CHEN HAU Yl dan disusul oleh saksi ONG TIONG POH yang menggunakan Mobil Toyota Kijang Innova No. Pol. B 8333 MZ; Bahwa kurang lebih 1 km (satu kilometer) sebelum sampai di Ruko Taman Palem Blok D.9 No.35 Cengkareng Jakarta Barat, Terdakwa berhenti di sebuah toko untuk membeli alat-alat berupa : linngis, tang, palu, Alat Kebersihan dan 1 (satu) dus minuman Aqua dan pada sekitar jam 14.00 Wib Terdakwa tiba di ruko tersebut di atas dan Iangsung membuka pintu ruko dan masuk untuk menyimpan alat-alat yang sudah dibeli sebelumnya untuk dipergunakan membersihkan ruko yang a keadaan di dalamnya kotor, setelah Terdakwa bersama saksi ROBERT MANDAEY selesai membenihkan ruko, lalu Terdakwa dan saksi ROBERT MANDAEY pergi makan sedangkan SAM alias TOMMY, saksi CHEN HAU VI dan saksi ONG TIONG P0K menyimpan 6 (enam) buah koper dan 2 (dua) buah handbag di dalam ruko yang dipersiapkan untuk tempat barang yang akan diserahkan oleh Terdakwa kepada saksi CHEN HAU Yl; Hal. 34 dari 51 hal. Put. No. 1443 KIP1d.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