The convicted on Forest Exploitation Case Fixed Petition

Assemblies of the review of Act 8 of 1981 on Criminal Proceedings of the 1945 Constitution entered its second session with the improvement agenda request on Monday (13/8). The trial is registered with a number of cases was filed by a 69/PUU-X/2012 defendant forest exploitation, Parlin Riduansyah.
Petitioners Legal Counsel, Yusril Ihza Mahendra in a preliminary hearing on Friday (27/7) then states that Article 197 paragraph (1) letter k and paragraph (2) contrary to the constitution. Therefore, the provisions of that chapter can be interpreted differently or interpretations, ie, between the law enforcement officers with the accused or convicted.
Article 197 paragraph (1) Criminal Code reads, "The letter containing the decision of punishment: ... k. a requirement that the defendant was arrested or remain in custody or released. "
While paragraph (2) reads, "Non-compliance with the provisions of paragraph (1) letter a, b, c, d, e, f, h, i, j, k and I of this article resulted in the decision null and void."
Parlin was sentenced to a two-year prison sentence on appeal. However, the Supreme Court decision did not include a requirement that the defendant remain in custody or detained in accordance with them. To note, in the district court, acquitted Parlin.
According to Yusril appropriate when referring to paragraph (2) of a quo, if any of the provisions of paragraph (1) not contained in the judgment of the court decision at any level declared null and void. "So that should be considered to have never existed. Therefore cannot be executed," said Yusril at the time.
And in today's second session, Yusril explained that it had carried out repair requests by eliminating the overall aspects of the formal testing of the test material into the Criminal Procedure Code Article 197 of the 1945 Constitution.
Yusril also said that in order to clarify the legal standing of the Petitioner, it was emphasized in the case of concrete, real, actual, and equipped with the tools of evidence. "Concretely as we noted earlier that the Principal Petitioner in this case was executed forced by prosecutors," said Yusril.
 After three filed a summons, continued Yusril, Principal Petitioner still would not attend due to reasonable attorney's call had no legal basis for the decision of who will execute the decision null and void. "Prosecutors had asked for police assistance, but we then had to report to police prosecutors for insisting on the execution of decisions null and void is violating Article 333 of the Criminal Code is deliberately depriving someone and continued deprivation of liberty, and existing measures of the police to inspect and to Prosecutors call for carrying out the decision to force the execution of the judgment null and void.
Principal applicant was subsequently arrested and taken forcibly by the prosecutor from Malang to Banjarmasin and handed over to Correctional institutions, Correctional institutions but confused head what to do with this person? Accepted for execution as an inmate, Correctional institutions realize that the decision null and void and to this day the Principal Petitioner is placed in the administrative head of the Correctional institution, are not incorporated into the cell as a prisoner," said Yusril. (Yusti Nurul Agustin / mh/ 

Tuesday, August 14, 2012 | 07:40 WIB 81