From Testimonial Credibility to Procedural Equality: Protecting Victims with Disabilities under Indonesia’s New Criminal Procedure Code through Decision No. 286/Pid.Sus/2025/PN Skt
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study examined the protection of victims with disabilities in Indonesian criminal proceedings through Decision No. 286/Pid.Sus/2025/PN Skt and the framework introduced by Indonesia’s new Criminal Procedure Code. The study addressed the problem of whether judicial assessment of testimony had sufficiently accommodated the specific procedural needs of victims with disabilities and ensured substantive equality during criminal adjudication. A normative legal method was employed by critically analysing the court’s reasoning and comparing it with the procedural safeguards governing disability rights in criminal proceedings. The analysis found that equal recognition of testimony had required more than formal acceptance of evidence. It had also depended on reasonable procedural accommodation, accessible communication, and a disability-sensitive assessment of testimonial credibility. The study further found that credibility assessment risked reproducing procedural inequality when disability-related characteristics were treated as indicators of evidentiary weakness. It concluded that the new Criminal Procedure Code should have been interpreted as requiring procedural equality throughout evidentiary examination, rather than merely guaranteeing formal participation of victims with disabilities.
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Antaki, C., Richardson, E., Stokoe, E., & Willott, S. (2015). Police interviews with vulnerable people alleging sexual assault: Probing inconsistency and questioning conduct. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 19(3), 328–350. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12124
Åker, T. H., & Johnson, M. S. (2020). Interviewing alleged victims with mild and moderate intellectual disabilities and autism: A field study of police-investigated cases of physical and sexual abuse in a Norwegian national sample. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 64(10), 782–792. https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.12771
Barkah, A. L. (2019). Perlindungan hak penyandang disabilitas tuna grahita sebagai saksi korban dalam proses peradilan pidana di Indonesia. ADLIYA: Jurnal Hukum dan Kemanusiaan, 12(2), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.15575/adliya.v12i2.4494
Bottoms, B. L., Nysse-Carris, K. L., Harris, T., & Tyda, K. (2003). Jurors’ perceptions of adolescent sexual assault victims who have intellectual disabilities. Law and Human Behavior, 27(2), 205–227. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022551314668
Cederborg, A. C., & Gumpert, C. H. (2010). The challenge of assessing credibility when children with intellectual disabilities are alleged victims of abuse. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 12(2), 125–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/15017410902909134
Damanik, J. A., & Widjaja, G. (2026). Faktor penilaian personal dalam memenuhi kebutuhan akomodasi yang layak bagi penyandang disabilitas berdasarkan perspektif PP Nomor 39 Tahun 2020 tentang akomodasi yang layak untuk penyandang disabilitas dalam proses peradilan. Literal: Disability Studies Journal, 4(1), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.62385/literal.v4i01.277
Devi, R. P. C., & Prasetio, I. L. I. (2022). Implementasi akomodasi yang layak bagi penyandang disabilitas dalam proses penyidikan di Kepolisian Kabupaten Sleman. Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan, 52(2), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.21143/jhp.vol52.no2.1481
Henry, L., Ridley, A., Perry, J., & Crane, L. (2011). Perceived credibility and eyewitness testimony of children with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 55(4), 385–391. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2011.01383.x
Hepner, I., Woodward, M. N., & Stewart, J. (2015). Giving the vulnerable a voice in the criminal justice system: The use of intermediaries with individuals with intellectual disability. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 22(3), 453–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2014.960032
Hutabarat, O. U. B., Yusriyadi, Y., & Lumbanraja, A. D. (2025). Perlindungan hukum dan pemulihan hak (remedial actions) penyandang disabilitas sebagai korban kekerasan seksual. Progressive Law and Society, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.14710/pls.31344
Indrawati, O. D., & Laksana, I. G. N. D. (2020). Kekuatan pembuktian keterangan saksi penyandang disabilitas sensorik (tuna rungu) dalam proses peradilan pidana. Kertha Wicara: Journal Ilmu Hukum, 9(3), 1–18.
Irawan, A. (2023). Perlindungan hukum bagi perempuan penyandang disabilitas intelektual korban kekerasan seksual. Jurnal Hukum Respublica, 22(2). https://doi.org/10.31849/respublica.v22i2.13868
Listiawati, E., Fauzi, E., Nata, L. M., & Jamaludin, A. (2023). Acces to justice penyandang disabilitas intelektual: Peradilan pidana sebagai implementasi equality before the law. Simbur Cahaya, 30(1), 173–190. https://doi.org/10.28946/sc.v30i1.2796
Msipa, D. (2015). How assessments of testimonial competence perpetuate inequality and discrimination for persons with intellectual disabilities: An analysis of the approach taken in South Africa and Zimbabwe. African Disability Rights Yearbook, 3, 63–90. https://doi.org/10.17159/2413-7138/2015/v3n1a3
Murphy, G. H., & O’Callaghan, A. (2004). Capacity of adults with intellectual disabilities to consent to sexual relationships. Psychological Medicine, 34(7), 1347–1357. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291704001941
Peled, M., Iarocci, G., & Connolly, D. A. (2004). Eyewitness testimony and perceived credibility of youth with mild intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 48(7), 699–703. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2003.00559.x
Pillay, A. L. (2012). The rape survivor with an intellectual disability vs. the court. South African Journal of Psychology, 42(3), 312–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/008124631204200303
Raharjanti, N. W., Ramadianto, A. S., Krisandi, G., William, D. G., & Reina, N. (2025). Ensuring access to justice in court: A scoping review of legal accommodations for individuals with intellectual disabilities in evolving legal systems. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/20473869.2025.2560454
Wahyudi, A. T., Fathan, & Kasiyati, S. (2023). Access to justice for persons with disabilities as victims of sexual violence: Fulfilment of reasonable accommodation in judicial process. INKLUSI, 10(2), 219–236. https://doi.org/10.14421/ijds.100205
Wiarti, J. (2020). Kompleksitas persoalan pemenuhan hak penyandang disabilitas di Pengadilan Negeri Pekanbaru. Jurnal Hukum IUS QUIA IUSTUM, 27(1), 87–109. https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol27.iss1.art5
Williams, H., & Jobe, A. (2025). Testimonial injustice: Exploring ‘credibility’ as a barrier to justice for people with learning disabilities/autism who report sexual violence. Disability & Society, 40(4), 1061–1083. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2024.2323455
Wood, M. E., Lawson, K. M., Anderson, J. L., Kinney, D. I., Nitch, S., & Glassmire, D. M. (2019). Reasonable accommodations for meeting the unique needs of defendants with intellectual disability. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 47(3), 310–320. https://doi.org/10.29158/JAAPL.003855-19
Legal Materials
Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia. (2025). Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia Nomor 2 Tahun 2025 tentang Pedoman Mengadili Perkara bagi Penyandang Disabilitas Berhadapan dengan Hukum di Pengadilan.
Pengadilan Negeri Surakarta. (2025). Putusan Nomor 286/Pid.Sus/2025/PN Skt.
Republik Indonesia. (2016). Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 2016 tentang Penyandang Disabilitas.
Republik Indonesia. (2020). Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 39 Tahun 2020 tentang Akomodasi yang Layak untuk Penyandang Disabilitas dalam Proses Peradilan.
Republik Indonesia. (2022). Undang-Undang Nomor 12 Tahun 2022 tentang Tindak Pidana Kekerasan Seksual.
Republik Indonesia. (2025). Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2025 tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana.
United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.