Previous 48 / 51 Next

namun tidak diperlihatkan, ditanyakan serta tidak pernah dijadikan pertimbangart oleh judex facti dalam rnemeriksa Pemohon Kasasi.selama proses hukum di Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Barat. Pasal 181 KURAP Berbunyi: (I) Hakim Ketua sidang memperlihatkan kepada Terdakwa segala barang bukti dan menanyakan kepadanya apakah ía mengenal benda itu dengan memperhatikan ketentuan sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 45 undang-undang mi. Jika perlu benda itu diperlihatkan juga oleh Hakim Ketua sidang kepada saksi. Apabila dianggap perlu untuk pembuktian, Hakim Ketua sidang membacakan atau memperlihatkan surat atau berita acara kepada Terdakwa atau saksi dan selanjutnya mmnta keterangan seperlunya tentang ha! itu. Di dalam Pasal 181 RUU KUHAP versi yang terakhir alat bukti surat menempati urutan nomor satu. Sementara, pada urutan dibawahnya mendapat empat alat bukti lain secara berurutan yaitu keterangan ahli, keterangan saksi, pengamatan Hakim selama sidang dan keterangan Terdakwa. Judex facti Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Barat pasti akan meringankan Terdakwa. Karena jika judex facti Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Barat memperlihatkan dan menanyakan bukti tersebut maka akan menguatkan fakta-fakta dan pasti sudah meringankan Terdakwa I Pemohon. Bahwa pemberian saksi mahkota terhadap Robert Mandaey adalah melanggar hukum karena tanpa ijin Kejaksaan Agung RI untuk mendeponir perkaranya. Bahwa saksi mahkota Robert Mandaey adalah juga pelaku utama dan seharusnya dijadikan sebagai Terdakwa di Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta 4 Barat (peranannya jelas sebagiamana dalam putusan judex facti Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Barat pada halaman 68). Robert Mandaey berperan aktif melakukan tindak pidana/mengorganisir Terdakwa lain dalam rnengerdarkanImenerima/memindahtangank psikotropika sebanyak 600.000 (enam ratus ribu) butir. Bahwa judex facti Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Barat mengajukan Robert Mandaey sebagai Terdakwa dengan berkas terpisah, akan tetapi yang sebenarnya saksi Robert Mandaey bukanlah sebagai Terdakwa, sangat Hal. 48 dari5l 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