Previous 44 / 54 Next

1- 7 Bahwa pada sekitar jam 19.00 Wib, terdakwa mendapat telepon dad saksi ONG TIONG POH dan meminta agar terdakwa datang ke Lobby Apartemen Mediterania pada sekitar jam 20.30 Wib, kemudian pada sekitar jam 21.00 Wib terdakwa bersama saksi ROBERT MANDAEY tiba di Lobby Apartemen tersebut dan bertemu dengan saksi CHEN HAU VI san saksi ONG TIONG POH kemudian menuju ke Restauran Singapore di dalam Iingkungan apartemen tersebut, dimana terdakwa dan saksi CHEN HAU VI membicarakan penyerahan 6 (enam) buah koper yang berisi bungkusan alumunium foil; . Bahwa pada tanggal 26 Pebruari 2008 terdakwa dan saksi ROBERT MANDAEY mengadakan pertemuan dengan saksi CHEN HAU VI, - ONG TIONG POH, TENG IZU CHIANG dan saksi LI VI HAO di City Seafood Malaysia Ruko Miami Blok C No.6 Cengkareng Jakarta Barat untuk menyerahkan 6 (enam) buah koper yang terisi dengan pu (tablet) dalam bungkusan alumunium foil sebanyak 69 (enam puluh sembilan) bungkus kepada saksi CHEN HAU VI yang telah diketahui bahwa pu adalab Psikotropika jenis Ecstasy, setelah berbincang sejenak i penyerahan berang tersebut diatas, saksi CHEN HAU VI hkan I (satu) kunci mobil Toyota Kijang Inova No.Pol D-1268diambil oleh saksi ROBERT MANDAEY untuk dipergunakan kut I membawa 6 (enam) buah koper yang telah terisi dengan tdaIam bungkusan alumunium foil tersebut dan dalam perjalanan ke ruko Mutiara Taman Palem Blok C9 No.62 Cengkareng Jakarta Barat, diikuti oleh saksi SIEGFRIED METS dengan mengendarai mobil herbs No.Pol. B-255-VM; . Bahwa sementara saksi ROBERT MANDAEY memindahkan koperkoper dad dalam ruko ke mobil Kijang Inova No.Pol. D-1268-ZY, petugas Kepolisian dad Direktorat Narkoba Polda Metro Jaya masingmasing AKP. MANGATUR SIANTURI, IPDA RUSWANTO dan BRIPKA TUGiVO yang sejak awal telah mendapatkan informasi bahwa di ruko Mutiara Taman Palem Blok C.9 No.62 Cengkareng Jakarta Barat dipergunakan menyimpan p11 ecstasy, maka dengan melihat seorang (dalam hal mi saksi ROBERT MANDAEY) memindahkan koper dad d&arn ruko ke mobil Kijang Inova dan seorang menunggu di mobil (terdakwa), pam petugas Kepolisian tersebut langsung melakukan penangkapan terhadap saksi ROBERT MANDAEY kemudian menangkap terdakwa yang menunggu di mobil herbs No.Pol B-255- Hal 44 dan 54 hal Put. No.83/PID/2009/PT.DKI

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