18
B. The evaluation standards on pretrial detention
Pretrial detention may only be used for the purpose of law enforcement, by considering other available options to assure the attendance of the suspect during trial. In addition, suspect that is
detained must be prioritized to be tried as soon as possible. In principle, a person that is accused of committing a crime, has the right to not be detained while
waiting for the trial to begin, unless the authorized official may show the relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the detention. During detention, the authorized official must prove that they have
conducted an in-depth examination on the element of concern that lead to the detention. Due to the level of criminal penalty or for the purpose of further examination or due to the
possibility that the suspect is about to be convicted, will not automatically legitimize the execution of pretrial detention. The authorized official must conduct an in-depth examination and must
elaborate the element of concern so that the pretrial detention is legal. Some important issues about the health condition, children that are under their parents protection,
and the possibility of alternative option in form of non-custodial act, must be considered for the legality of the pretrial detention. In terms of follow-up investigation, the authorized official may not
use the same reason for the pretrial detention. During pretrial, it is important to assure that the detention is not conducted arbitrarily. Therefore,
the determination of detention must be based on strict, certain, and measurable criterias, so that the authorized officials may implement their duty in certain manner. In detail, the requirements and
criteria for pretrial detention are elaborated below:
a. Subject to 5 years of imprisonment or more legal ground
This requirement is known as legal basis, because the laws have determined which articles that may be used for the basis for detention. The laws have also determined
—in general and detail—the crimes in which the perpetrator may be detained, therefore not every perpetrator may be imposed
pretrial detention. KUHAP asserts that a detention may only be imposed against a suspect or defendant that commit a
crime or participate in a crime subject to 5 years of imprisonment or more.
335
In contrast, if the crime subject to less than five years of imprisonment, then the perpetrators may not be subject to
detention. In regards to crime committed on exclusive economic zone, Article 13 c of the Law No. 5 of 1983 on
Exclusive Economic Zone states that in executing the sovereign rights, jurisdiction, and other obligaiton under Article 4 1 of the Law, law enforcers may take necessary measures according to
KUHAP, with the exception under point c. In regards to detention, crimes stipulated under Articles 16-17 of the Exclusive Economic Zone Law are categorized as crime according to Article 21 4 b of
KUHAP. Further, pursuant to the Elucidaiton of Article 13 of the Exclusive Economic Zone Law, ships and
crew that are allegedly committing a crime in the sea, based on the sufficient preliminary evidence, especially foreign ships and crew, are subject to follow-up examination by arresting the ships and
335
Article 21 4, Chief of the National Police Regulation No. 12 of 2009.
19 the people in it. Meanwhile, domestic ships and crew may be ordered to go the nearby seaport
appointed by the investigator for further examination. Detention may also be imposed against a perpetrator committing a crime under KUHP and other
specific laws, even though the crime subject to less than 5 years of imprisonment. Such detention may be executed if the crime is considered hampering the public order, and threat against an
individual. These types of crime are:
1. Articles 282 3, 296, 335 1, 351 1, 353 1, 372, 378, 379 a, 453, 454, 455, 459, 480, and
506 of KUHP; 2.
Articles 25 and 26 of Rechtenordonantie violation against Custom and Excise Ordonantie, lastly amended by Staatsblad of 1931 No. 471,
3. Articles 1, 2, and 4 of the Law No. 8Drt1955 on Immigration Crime;
4. Articles 36 7, 41, 42, 43, 47, and 48 of the Law No. 9 of 1976 on Narcotics.
5. Article 109 of the Law No. 6 2011 on Immigration states that suspect and defendat that
committ immigration crime under Articles 118
, 119
, 120
, 121
, 122
, 123
, 126
, 127
, 128
, 129
, 131
, 132
, 133 b
, 134 b
, and 135
are subject to detention. Investigatorprosecutor may not modify the detention by imposing the articles that make the
suspectdefendant is possible to be detained, while the actual crime is not.
336
b. Necessity
This element take into consideration the condition or the necessity of a detention based on the suspe t o defe da t s o ditio . This condition is subjectively assessed by the related law
enforcers. The condition or necessity of detention under Article 21 1 of KUHAP may be assessed from:
i The suspect or defendant will escape;
ii The suspect or defendant will damage or make the evidences disappear; or
iii The suspect or defendant will repeat the crime.
Pursuant to the Chief of the National Police Regulation No. 14 of 2012 on Criminal Investigation Management, detention against a suspect may be conducted by considering:
337
i There is a concern that the suspect will escape;
ii There is a concern that the suspect will repeat the crime;
iii There is a concern that the suspect will make evidences disappear; and
iv The suspect may harm the investigation process.
The abovementioned elements will be elaborated below:
b.1. Suspect will escape
The authorized official must properly examine the risk or the condition that make the suspect escape, based on several evidences. The condition and the risk, for instance, if the crime is subject to
capital punishment or life sentence, or the suspect when committing a crime has committed two or
336
Dalam tingkat penyelidikan dan penyidikan hal ini telah dilarang berdasarkan Pasal 29 Perkap No. 12 Tahun 2009. Pelarangan juga ditegaskan oleh Perkap No. 14 Tahun 2012.
337
Pasal 44 Perkap No. 14 Tahun 2012.
20 more crimes. The main points used to examine the element of concern that the suspect will escape,
are elaborated below:
1. “uspe t s ha a te s including physical and mental condition;
2. “uspe t s o al situatio ,
3. “uspe t s u e t e plo e t,
4. “uspe t s p ope t ,
5. The stability of family kinship,
6. The pe iod of do i ile i suspe t s eigh ou hood,
7. The bond with the neighbourhood,
8. Past history and the absence of criminal track record,
9. Track record of past crimes, or
10. “uspe t s t a k e o d he atte di g t ials.
The absence of permanent domicile cannot be used as the argument to justify pretrial detention. In addition, the possibility of suicide may not be used as the argument that the suspect will escape. The
la k of pe so al gua a tee that ill assu e the suspe t s atte da e du i g t ial a d othe information regarding the possibility of the supervision failure towards the suspect in the society,
may not also be used as justification to conduct detention.
b.2. Damaging or making evidences disappear
The presence of risk when the suspect will hamper judicial process must be stated clearly based on relevant factors. The risk may not be abstract in nature, but must be supported by factual evidences.
For instance, the suspectdefendant will influence witnesses, which will make witnesses are reluctant to give honest statement.
In long terms, however, the argument that the investigation is still necessary is not sufficient as the basis to continue the detention. In normal condition, threats or risk will be reduced as the time goes
by, including the proper statement and evidence gathering process that will prove the crime. Some indicators that may be used to assess this condition are:
i If the suspect has the ability to hamper or hinder judicial process;
ii If the suspect has the ability to threat the safety of the witnesses; or
iii If the suspect has the ability to take some actions that will threat the judges safety.
b.3. The suspect will repeat the crime
The use of this element must be clearly stated and understood by considering relevant factors, especially by evaluating the condition of the case and the track record and the personality of the
suspect. The suspe t s t a k e o d a d ha a te i lude the a se e of past i es o histo of the suspe t
in fulfilling the requirements that have been set from the previous judicial process. Another indicator is related to the time when crime is committed
—whether it happened when the suspect is in probation period, parole, suspension, transfer of detention, appeal, cassation, or newly conducted.
c. Concern that there will a public disturbance
KUHAP does not incorporate the threat of public order as one of the prerequisites in executing detention. In practice, however, this issue is one of the considerations from the authorized officials.
21 Therefore, to make pretrial detention is not executed arbitrarily, it is important to establish a
standard for this argument. The level of crime and public reaction against the suspect may be used as the justificable reason to
execute pretrial detention, by using public order. However, the implementation of pretrial detention may be used temporary. It means that this reason cannot be used to extend the detention period.
The authorized official must show the proof that indicates the release of the suspect from the pretrial detention may endanger the safety of the suspect.
The threats against the suspect and public order will be reduced as the times goes by. Therefore, the authorized official must provide concrete and specific reasons for the public interest in the light of
showing the necessity of the extended detention. The nature and serious possible threats are occurred when the suspect is released from the pretrial
detention that must be proved based on the clear and assuring evidence
—not theoritical and potential evidence.
In the implementation, a suspect of narcotics crime who is a use, cannot be detained by using the reason of the presence of threat against public order. The reason of threatening public order may be
implemented for the person that is accused of committing sexual crimes or crimes against children.
d. Special consideration for children
The criminal justice system upholds the rights of the children or minors to improve themselves. Therefore, the criminal proceeding for the children must guarantee the interest of the children, and
promote the physical and mental health of the children. In particular, the expropriation of the liberty against the children conflicted with the law must be prevented, and may only be used as the last
resort if there is no more non-custodial alternative. Detention against minors may only be executed if the minor has reached 14 years of age or more
and allegedly committed crime that is subject to 7 years of imprisonment or more. Detention against minors cannot be used if the minor has a personal guarantee from their parents or legal guardian or
from certain institution, which assures that the minor will not escape, will not damaging or making evidences disappear, andor will not repeat the crime.
At the international level, the United Nations General Assembly, in 1985, has issued UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice or known as the Beijing Rules. Two further
instruments were issued to implement Beijing Rules, namely UN Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency and UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived Of Their Liberty.
The objective of the abovementioned standards are to give a treatment that is oriented to nurture the minor that is conflicted with the law, and to prevent those minors from repeating the crime. At
the same time, the minors have the right to equal treatment during judicial process, to protect them that are accused committing crime.
The Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty states that the principles in the treatment for the children covers:
i Deprivation of the liberty of a juvenile should be a disposition of last resort and for the
minimum necessary period and should be limited to exceptional cases; ii
Juveniles should only be deprived of their liberty in accordance with the principles and procedures set forth in these Rules and in the
Beiji g ‘ules; and
22 iii
To minimize the negative impact of liberty deprivation and other side effects.
e. Special consideration for narcotics users
Pursuant to the Law No. 35 of 2009 on Narcotics, drugs users are still categorized as criminal offenders that subject to imprisonment, stipulated under Article 127 of the Narcotics Law. In
practice, narcotics user caught red-handed, are accused for violating Articles 111-114 of the Narcotics Law.
The implementation of pretrial detention against narcotics users, especially those that are indicted with other articles than Article 127 of the Narcotics Law, must be prevented. Alternatives such as
diversion and rehabilitatio may be used. Alternative option is in line with the Supreme Court Circular Letter No. 4 of 2010, which states that if the suspect is categorized as user, medical or social
rehabilitation may be used.
f. Special consideration for petty crimes the value of loss under IDR 2.5 million
The value of goods under KUHP was lastly amended on 1960, due to the issuance of the Government Regulation in lieu of a Law No. 16 of 1960. Therefore, some crimes stipulated under Articles 364,
373, 379, 384, 407, and 482 of KUHP cannot be implemented. Suspects that commit crime that fall under the category of Articles 364, 373, 379, 384, 407, and 482 of KUHP must be classified as petty
crimes. In the implementation, authorized official must refer to the Supreme Court Regulation No. 2 of 2012,
as the legal ground to determine the suspect of committing petty crime. Therefore, there is no need to impose pretrial detention against the suspect.
g. Requirements under Article 21 1 of KUHAP
In addition to the abovementioned elements for detention, a detention must also fulfill the requirements under Article 21 1 of KUHAP, namely:
i The suspect or defendant is allegedly accused as the perpetrator of the crim;
ii The strong allegation is based on sufficient evidence.
U like a a est that is ased o the suffi ie t p eli i a e ide e , dete tio ust e e e uted ased o suffi ie t e ide e . The efo e, the e ui e e t o the e ide e fo dete tio is o the
higher level compared to an arrest. KUHAP s Elu idatio does ot defi e suffi ie t e ide e . Ho e e , A ticle 62 1 and 75 of HIR
states that a detention must be based on such requirements if there are statements that show the suspect is guilty.
Be ause KUHAP does ot defi e suffi ie t e ide e , this p o isio ust e see p opo tio all . At the investi
gatio le el, it is suffi ie t if the i i u li it of p oof is satisfied, so that the ase a be brought before the court, by using the evidences stipulated under Article 184 of KUHAP.
23
CHAPTER III Procedures and Period of Detention
Kategori