Name : Ikabuli Adilman Harefa

Student ID : 017201800040

 The busker case was wrongly arrested by the police

A. issue (problem statement)

1. The discovery of Dicky Maulana who was killed under the Cipulir river bridge, South Jakarta, which was
found by six buskers. the four buskers are minors, Fatahilah (12), Samosir (13), Personal Fikri (17),
Bagus Firdaus alias Pau (16), and Arga Putra While the other two buskers are adults, Nurdin Prianto ( 23),
Andro Suprianto (18) and. The six buskers reported the body was found to the nearest security on June
30, 2013

2. then Police from the Jakarta Metropolitan Police came and asked the six buskers to come as witnesses.
But according to news from the six buskers, the police instead carried out interrogations by means of
violence and intimidated the buskers to forcefully confess those who committed the killings. The legal
process carried out to the six buskers was carried out separately, bearing in mind the problem of different
ages.

3, Fikri, Pau, Fatahilah and Ucok were declared guilty by the South Jakarta District Court. They were
subjected to criminal offenses each of Fikri 4 years, Fatahilah 3 years 6 months, Ucok and Pau 3 years.
In the meantime Nurdin and Andro were still investigating cases on October 1, 2013.

4. The four buskers tried to appeal but the Jakarta District Court upheld the decision that had been made.
On October 28, 2013,

5. Then on December 23, 2013, Fikri and other buskers tried again to file a lawsuit with the Supreme
Court for justice.

6., The court decided on January 16, 2014 that Nurdin and Andro were guilty and were sentenced to 7
years imprisonment each.

7. on 14 February 2014 the submission of an appeal filed by Fikri and his friends was rejected by the
Supreme Court on the grounds that it had exceeded the validity limit for the administration that was
determined for 14 days from the appeal filed on 3 December 2013.

8. Then on March 5, 2014, the charges against Nurdin and Andro were canceled on the grounds of
considering the statements of 5 witnesses. One witness named Lan Pribadi who was a friend of the
perpetrators of the Dicky murder. Ian admitted if the main suspect in the Dicky murder case was actually
Jubai who was assisted by Chairudin Hamzah or Brengos. At that time Ian was with the two suspects
who had planned the murder of Dicky. The motive for their murder was to steal a mio soul motorbike.

9. On 6 April 2015, Fikri and his friends requested a review of the Supreme Court with evidence that the
convicted person was not the real culprit. The evidence corroborating this statement is the video and
screenshoot of the confession of the witnesses of the actual perpetrators, namely Ian Personal.
Considering the evidence, there was a mistake from the Supreme Court Judge where the appeal
submitted by Fikri and his friends was reported to have just been discovered on December 10, 2015 so
that the appeal petition submitted at that time could still be carried out. Then on January 19, 2016 Fikri
and his friends were released.

10. On June 21, 2019 Nurdin and Andro were assisted by public lawyers from the Jakarta legal aid
agency to sue the Jakarta Police and the Jakarta High Prosecutor's Office for compensation for the
wrongful arrests of 3 years ago totaling 1 billion and 186 million per person.
B. Position of Case (Statement of Facts)

1. The claim against compensation submitted by Nurdin and Andro is regulated in article 95 paragraph (1)
of the Criminal Code which reads:

"A suspect, defendant or convicted person has the right to claim compensation for being arrested,
detained, prosecuted and tried or subjected to other actions, without reasons based on the law or
because of errors regarding the person or applied law"

and Rehabilitation, according to article 1 point 23 of the Criminal Procedure Code is: "A person's right to
recover his right in ability, position, and dignity and dignity granted at the level of education, prosecution
or trial for being arrested, supported, prosecuted or tried without reasons related to the law or because of
an error in how to regulate this law. "

And article paragraph (3) which reads: "the claim for compensation as referred to in paragraph (!) Shall be
submitted by the suspect, defendant, convict or heir to the court authorized to adjudicate the case
concerned.

2 Article 77 Regarding pretrial, the district court has the right to examine and decide, in accordance with
the provisions of the Law concerning: a. the legitimacy of arrest, detention, cessation of investigation or
cessation of prosecution, b. compensation and or rehabilitation for a person whose criminal case is
terminated at the level of investigation or prosecution.

3. That the claim related to compensation as mentioned above is in the wrong of arrest made by the
police against the Cipulir busker and causes the busker to feel disadvantaged as regulated under Law
Article 95 Paragraphs (3) and (4) of the Criminal Code regarding compensation, namely a claim
Compensation as referred to in paragraph (1) shall be submitted by the suspect who feels disadvantaged
to the court that hears the case in question. And to decide upon the case for the compensation claim as
referred to in paragraph (1), the Chairperson of the court shall choose the same judge when he hears the
criminal case concerned.

4 Perpetrators also received articles related to the motive for taking Mio Soul motorbikes owned by the
victim, Article 364 of the Criminal Code on Theft, which reads Whosoever takes items, which are wholly
owned or owned by someone else's owner, with the intention to become their own and be owned privately
law, caught in the threat of theft, with a maximum of five years' criminal sentence.

5. Whereas in addition to claims related to compensation, there are also buskers entitled to get
rehabilitation as referred to in Article 97 Paragraph (3) Regarding Rehabilitation where it reads, Request
for rehabilitation by a suspect for detention or detention which is detrimental without any reasons related
to the Law or found an error against someone as intended in Article 95 Paragraph (1) whose case was
not submitted to a district court was decided by a pretrial judge which is meant in article 77.

6. The perpetrators of killings that lead to wrong arrests are subject to snare Article 340 of the Criminal
Code concerning Crimes Against Life, which explains who is the person who revokes, takes, seizes the
lives of others intentionally and with a plan in advance, is threatened with murder committed with a plan,
can be sentenced to death or life imprisonment or according to the specified time, a maximum of twenty
years or a maximum fine of nine hundred rupiah.

7. When viewed from the form of losses, the buskers named Nurdin and Andro received compensation of
72 million. While from the Fikri and friendsnget compensation of Rp. 186,600,000 thousand rupiah
perperson. If the total with all four becomes Rp. 746,400,000 thousand rupiah.

8. Supreme Court Decree No. 11 of 1985 concerning Rehabilitation Requests of Defendants Acquitted or
Released from All Lawsuits (SEMA 11/1985), the four buskers can submit a request to the Chair of the
District Court who decides his case in the first instance.
C. Applicable law (Legal Basis)

The results of research on Legal Protection for Victims of wrongful arrest are regulated in several laws,
including

1. Law. No. 8 of 1981 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code Article I point 10, chapter X first part of
article 77 through article 83 and articles 95 to article 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Who regulates compensation for any right of a person to obtain fulfillment of his claim, in the form of
compensation in the amount of money, for being arrested, detained, prosecuted, or tried without reason,
which is based on the law, or because of errors regarding the person or the law applied in the way
regulated .

- in article 95 paragraph 1 which states: "A suspect, defendant or criminal has the right to claim
compensation for being arrested, detained, prosecuted and tried or subject to other actions, without
reasons based on the law or because of an error regarding the person or applied law"- Mechanisms for
submitting claims for compensation as a result of unauthorized detention are regulated in Article 96 of the
Criminal Procedure Code.

- The formulation of article 95 and article 96 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding compensation, has
not yet been regulated in full either regarding the deadline for submitting claims for compensation, the
basis for consideration given or rejection of claims for compensation or the party responsible for paying
compensation, completed and clarified by Government Regulation Number 27 of 1983 concerning the
Implementation of the Criminal Procedure Code Article 7 to Article 11 and the procedure for payment is
regulated in the Decree of the Minister of Finance Number 983 / KMK.01 / 1983

- Provisions on rehabilitation in the Criminal Procedure Code, namely in Article 97 paragraph (1),
paragraph (2) and paragraph (3). Before that article the definition of Rehabilitation is contained in Article 1
Item 23 Furthermore, as is the case with the provisions on compensation.

- the judge assesses that the compensation request submitted by the applicant has expired based on
Article 7 paragraph 1 PP 92 of 2015, which reads:

"Claims for compensation as referred to in article 95 of the Criminal Procedure Code can only be
submitted no later than 3 months, counting from the date of the extract or copy of the court's decision that
has obtained legal force and remains accepted".

2. Rehabilitation, according to article 1 point 23 of the Criminal Procedure Code is: "The right of a person
to obtain restoration of his right in ability, position, and dignity and dignity given at the level of education,
prosecution or trial for being arrested, supported, prosecuted or tried without reason relating to the law or
because of the error in how to regulate this law. "

3. Law No.39 of 1999 concerning Human Rights, to obtain the protection of the dignity of every human
being and the right to life and the right to justice.

- Article 4 The right to life, the right not to be tortured, the right to personal freedom, mind and conscience,
the right to religion, the right not to be enslaved, the right to be recognized as individuals and equality
before the law, and the right not to be prosecuted on the basis of a retroactive law are rights human rights
that cannot be reduced under any circumstances and by anyone.

Article 5 paragraph 1. Every person is recognized as a private person who has the right to demand and
receive the same treatment and protection in accordance with the dignity of his humanity before the law.

Paragraph 2. Everyone has the right to receive assistance and fair protection from an objective and
impartial court.
Paragraph 3.Everyone who belongs to a vulnerable group of people has the right to receive more
treatment and protection with regard to their specificity.

- Right to Justice Article 17

Everyone, without discrimination, has the right to obtain justice by filing petitions, complaints and lawsuits,
in criminal, civil and administrative cases and tried through a free and impartial judicial process, in
accordance with procedural law that guarantees an objective examination by a judge who is a judge
honest and fair to get a fair and correct decision.

Article 18 paragraph 1. Every person who is arrested, detained, and prosecuted because they are
suspected of committing a criminal offense has the right to be presumed innocent, until proven legally
guilty in a court of law and given all the legal guarantees needed for his defense, in accordance with
statutory provisions.

Paragraph 2. Every person must not be prosecuted or convicted of a criminal offense, except based on a
statutory regulation that existed before the crime was committed.

Paragraph 3. Every time there is a change in the legislation, the most favorable provisions apply for the
suspect.

Paragraph 4.Every person examined is entitled to legal assistance from the time of the investigation until
a court decision has obtained permanent legal force.

Paragraph 5. Every person cannot be prosecuted for the second time in the same case for an act that has
obtained a court decision which has permanent legal force.

4. RI Law No. 31 of 2014 concerning changes to the Act. No. 13 of 2006 concerning witness and victim
protection,

5. Law. No. 48 of 2009 concerning judicial authority, those who make arrests, detention if wrongdoing is
subject to sanctions.

D. Conclusions

Events in 2013 ago Police from the Jakarta Police made a mistake of arrest. Towards scraped buskers.
Police from the Jakarta Metropolitan Police arrested and arrested Private Fikri (17), Bagus Firdaus alias
Pau (16), Fatahilah (12), and Arrga Putra Samosir (13), Nurdin Prianto (23), and Andro Suprianto (18).
Dickog Maulana. After all of them were handed down the law, Fikri and a friend asked for an appeal from
the Jakarta District Court to confirm the decision that had been made.

After that Fikri and friends again requested an appeal to the Supreme Court. However, the appeal of Fikri
and friends was rejected by the Supreme Court on the grounds that the deadline had passed. Then
choose Nurdin and Andro to be canceled on the grounds of considering recognition.

One of the witnesses was Ian Personal who represented the victim Dicky Maulana. He praised the
suspect as the victory case was Jubai who received Chairudin Hamzah.

The substitute requested for compensation was Rp.746,400,000 or 186 million per person and also asked
the police to accept his mistakes in the arrests and acts of intimidation committed against the buskers.

The Supreme Court filed an appeal filed by Fikri and his buskers friends, Nuurdin and Andro, asking
Publick to ask the Jakarta Metropolitan Police and the Jakarta High Prosecutors Office to request 1 billion
and 186 million each person related to a case of wrongful arrest.