Previous 47 / 51 Next

ditentukan Pasal 177 KUHAP. Pemohon adalah Warga Negara Belanda kelahiran Semararig, hanya tinggal sementara di Indonesia sehingga tidak memahami bahasa Indonesia dan tidak mampu untuk mengerti/memahami isi pemeriksaan di pengadilan yang berbahasa Indonesia. Dalam Pasal 53 ayat (1) KUHAP dinyatakan dalam pemeriksaan pada tingkat penyidikan dan pengadilan, tersangka atau Terdakwa berhak untuk setiap waktu mendapat bantuan juru bahasa sebagaimana tertera/dimaksudkan dalam Pasal 177 KUHAP. Selanjutnya dalam pasal 177 KUHAP disebutkan bahwa "jika Terdakwa atau saksi tidak paham bahasa Indonesia, Hakim Ketua sidang menunjuk juru bahasa yang bersumpah atu berjanji akan menerjemahkan dengan benar semua yang harus diterjemahkan". Judex facti Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Barat metakukan pemeriksaan terhadap pemohon tanpa menyediakan penterjemah sebagaimana diamanatkan Pasal 177 KUHAP. Pemohon sebagia Warga Negara Asing (Belanda) dan tidak fasih berbahasa Indonesia, hanya fasih berbahasa Belanda dan sedikit bahasa Inggris. Akibat keterbatasan menggunakan bahasa Indonesia dalam menjatani proses persidangan di Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Barat, maka sulitlah bagi Hakim, Jaksa dan Pembela untuk menggali kebenaran materiit perkara mi. Jika seandainya Majelis Hakim Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Barat kebenaran materiil akan ditemukan dan kemungkinan besar terbebas dari hukuman. - Judex facti Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Barat tidak memperlihatkan dan menanyakan seluruh barang bukti sebagaimana ditentukan oleh Pasal 181 ayat (1), (2), (3) KUHAP. Judex facti Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Barat tidak memperlihatkan seluruh barang bukti sebanyak 600.000 (enam ratus ribu) butir ekstasi sebagaimana tertera dalam berkas perkara pemohon. Kuasa Hukum Pemohon sudah meminta agar barang bukti 600.000 (enam ratus ribu) a butir ekstasi tersebut diperlihatkan pada acara pembuktian, namun permintaan kuasa hukum pemohon tidak pernah dikabulkan, jadi ada dugaan kuat telah terjadi rekayasa dalam persidangan / pada saat acara pembuktian. Surat pernyataan bèrmaterai yang dibuat oleh saksi Mahkota Robert Mandaey diatas kertas bermaterai yang menjelaskan bahwa "pemohon bukanlah pemilik ekstasi 600.000 butir dan pemohon tidak tahu perihal barang tersebut adalah ekstasi". Bahwa bukti surat tersebut diajukan Hal. 47 dad 51 hal. Put. No. 1443 K/Pid.Sus12009

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