 PARADOX: ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE ISSUE IN INDONESIASurya Prahara and
Elwi Danil
International Journal of Entrepreneurship, 2021, vol. 25, issue 4 Abstract: The position of electronic evidence in Indonesia has created a paradox in its use in the court. Some laws define electronic evidence as independent evidence outside of the evidence stipulated in the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code. This is contrary to the proof system adopted by Indonesia, namely negatief wettelijke. Some other laws explain that electronic evidence is an extension of the evidence provided for in the Criminal Procedure Code (evidence of clues). However, the phrase “expansion of evidence” creates multi-interpretations. In addition, if electronic evidence is part of evidence, and then based on the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code, the value contained in evidence (including electronic evidence) has independent evidentiary value, thus potentially weakening the evidentiary value of the electronic evidence and legal uncertainty might be occurred. As a result of this paradox, the regulation of electronic evidence in Indonesia has not met Gustav Radbruch’s version of the Principle of Justice. Keywords: Electronic Evidence; Negatief Wettelijke; Principle of Justice (search for similar items in EconPapers) There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it. Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ris:ijentr:0201 Access Statistics for this article International Journal of Entrepreneurship is currently edited by Nicolaj Hannesbo Petersen More articles in International Journal of Entrepreneurship from Allied Business Academies |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.