TINJAUAN YURIDIS OTENTIFIKASI ALAT BUKTI ELEKTRONIK DI PERSIDANGAN DITINJAU DARI UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 19 TAHUN 2016 TENTANG PERUBAHAN ATAS UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 11 TAHUN 2008 TENTANG INFORMASI DAN TRANSAKSI ELEKTRONIK (STUDI PUTUSAN NOMOR 1061/Pid.Sus/2023/

Abstract

The general criminal procedure code does not recognize electronic evidence as valid evidence. In court, electronic evidence is a valid means of evidence to prove cyber crimes. The Criminal Procedure Code does not legally include electronic evidence, so it appears imperfect and incomplete. At the time of proof, the criminal procedural code did not yet recognize cyber technology crimes. So it was unthinkable that electronic evidence could be used as evidence could be used as evidence for valid proof in criminal acts in court. To deal with incompleteness and imperfection, legal science provides a method of legal discovery, namely the process of forming law by judges or other legal officers who are given the law through interpretation, including language, historical interpretation of laws, systematic interpretation, social interpretation, cooperative interpretation, futuristic interpretation, restrictive interpretation, extensive interpretation, authentic interpretation, interdisciplinary interpretation, multidisciplinary interpretation. Criminal law is not permitted to interpret new legal discoveries, because strict interpretation is to maintain legal certainty in the principle og legality. However, both principles cannot be set aside. Incomplete criminal procedural law books can be set aside in order to achieve the material objectives of criminal procedural law. The nature of the Indonesia Legal system is open.