The Effectiveness of the Evidentiary System and the Protection of Victim-Witnesses in Criminal Procedure for the Prosecution of Human Trafficking Cases

Abstract

The Crime of Human Trafficking (TPPO) is a transnational crime that operates behind a veil of secrecy (a clandestine crime), making the evidentiary process the most crucial challenge in the criminal justice system. In the majority of cases, the victim-witness serves as the sole primary piece of evidence (the key witness) capable of revealing the modus operandi, the identity of the perpetrators, and the syndicate network. However, their position is highly vulnerable to threats, intimidation, and profound psychological trauma. The main issue raised in this article is the ineffectiveness of the traditional evidentiary system under the Indonesian Code of Criminal Procedure (KUHAP), which demands a rigid standard of material proof when confronted with a lack of physical evidence. The current system often fails to balance the need for legal truth with the human rights of victim-witnesses, resulting in the phenomenon of secondary victimization within the courtroom due to exploitative cross-examination. This study employs normative legal research (doctrinal legal research) by applying three primary approaches: the statutory approach, the conceptual approach, and the comparative law approach. The analysis focuses on synchronizing national legal instruments, namely Law Number 21 of 2007 on the Eradication of Human Trafficking, Law Number 8 of 1981 (the Code of Criminal Procedure/KUHAP), and Law Number 31 of 2014 on the Protection of Witnesses and Victims. The findings indicate that the current evidentiary system in criminal procedure remains formalistic and has not fully adopted a victim-oriented approach. The establishment of the Witness and Victim Protection Agency (LPSK) has not been accompanied by radical procedural reform within the courtroom, leaving victims frequently required to confront perpetrators in person. This study recommends reconstructing the regulatory framework to legitimize the use of virtual courtroom technology as an absolute right of victims, as well as implementing a shifting burden of proof concerning aspects of exploitation. These conclusions contribute to the development of Indonesia's criminal justice system based on the philosophy of Dignified Justice, under which the enforcement of the law must never be achieved at the expense of the dignity and psychological well-being of victim-witnesses.