The Analysis of The Forms of Justice Collaborator Actors in Criminal Acts of Corruption

Doi:

How to cite:

Abstract

Criminal acts of participation often occur among corruption, especially in Indonesia, in this current era, a form of participation that is very important in eradicating criminal acts of corruption, facilitating, and accelerating the capture of facts of crime that happened as a justice collaborator. In this study, the writer uses a normative juridical research method with data collection techniques used to solve the problems, namely official documents, regulations, literatures or official books. The data analysis that is used was descriptive analytical analysis of primary and secondary data. The purpose of this study is to analyze the participation of justice collaborators in criminal acts of corruption and the legal protection for justice collaborators in criminal acts of corruption. From the research, it is concluded that the concept of justice collaborator is essentially the same as the concept of participation in a corruption case, they report the case to the law enforcement officials by themselves, it occurs in several possibilities such as, as a person who participates with other people doing corruption, people doing corruption by the suggestion of other people and people which helps other people to do corruption. The role of a justice collaborator witness is very important and needed to eradicate criminal acts of corruption, because with the existence of justice collaborator itself, they can reveal the brain or the mastermind of a larger criminal act of corruption, so that it is expected to be able to solve the criminal acts, especially corruption, easily.

Keywords: Participation, Justice  Collaborator,  Criminal Acts of Corruption

9. Introduction

As an extraordinary crime, corruption is a complex problem that has been integrated in all aspects of life and occurs neatly without recognizing the class of society so that it can destroy all social structures and disrupt the course of development. In fact, the corruption that occurs in Indonesia has institutionalized almost all of the government structures, even to the "prodeo hotel" corruption still occurs. The public of course still remembers how Setya Novanto alias Papa Setnov who changed a prison into a room equal to a seven-star hotel. This illustrates clearly how deeply entrenched corruption is. So it is not surprising, because it is so difficult to prove in the court, corruption is also known as an invisible crime.

Besides that, corruption is a type of crime whose law enforcement requires the firmness and clarity of political policies. To deal with such chronic corruption, of course, it requires an extraordinary crime treatment, tenacity and also the role of law enforcement officials and various parties to break the chain of corruption and several other extraordinary crimes.

In Indonesian criminal law, criminal law is codified, that is, most of the regulations have been compiled in a law book (wetbook) called the “KUHP” or criminal law book (wetbook van strafrecht).^[1]

Regarding the prohibition and the threat of an act, as well as regarding the criminal acts itself, there is also a main basis called the principle legality which means that there are no forbidden acts or punishable acts if it wasn’t determined by the legislation first. It is usually also known in Latin as nullum delictum nulla poena sine praevia lage (no criminal acts, no punishment without prior regulation).

A criminal act or criminal event is commonly referred to as a criminal act in certain cases that can be committed by any person, and at the same time or other times it can also be committed by several people together. In other words, a criminal act can be committed by several people who are involved in it. Some people who commit crimes together are commonly referred to as criminal acts of participation or deelneming.^[2]

Furthermore, the existence of corruption has begun to disturb the importance of the nation and the state, it also causing losses to the state finances. The shift in individual accountability in article 18 of Law 31 of 1999 jo. Law Number 20 of 2001 about The Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption, especially about the payment of substitute money and/or return of assets included in the judge's verdict against the convict and fines, must also be borne by the heirs. Especially if the convict dies, which gives a new view about the other dimensions of  the criminal acts of participation.

The criminal acts of participation (Deelneming) often occur among corruption, especially in Indonesia. Most of the corrupt practices are carried out by several people who have the same goal of enriching themselves by taking advantage of their positions.^[3]

Besides that, corruption is not a new case in Indonesia, even corruption has become a part of life, has become a system and is integrated into the state government. Overcoming corruption through Law No. 31 of 1999 jo. Law Number 20 of 2001 about The Eradication of The Criminal Acts of Corruption failed due to the fact that the institutions established to eradicate corruption do not carry out their functions effectively, weak legal instruments, coupled with law enforcement officials who do not really realize the serious consequences of corruption.^[4]

In the course of the criminal justice system in Indonesia, there are many people as legal subjects who do not reveal the truth in court due to various external and internal factors. This can hamper the performance of law enforcement officials in proving a criminal case such as a criminal act of corruption.

In this current era, one form of participation that is very important in eradicating criminal acts of corruption, facilitating and accelerating the capture of facts about crimes that have occurred is the Justice Collaborator.

The use of a justice collaborator in criminal justice is one form of an extraordinary effort that can be used in eradicating criminal acts of corruption, in which the perpetrator can cooperate with law enforcement officials.

The concept of justice collaborator is essentially the same as the concept of the criminal acts of participation in the provision of articles 55 and 56 of the Criminal Code, in corruption cases, they report the case to the law enforcement officials themselves in several ways such as, as a person who participates in other people that is doing corruption, people commit corruption by the suggestion of other people, and people who help others to do corruption.

The role of a justice collaborator witness is very important and needed to eradicate criminal acts of corruption, because with the existence of a justice collaborator itself, it can reveal the brain or mastermind of a larger criminal act of corruption so that it is expected to be able to solve the criminal acts, especially corruption, easily. However, until now, the state still has not given awards and maximum protection to justice collaborators. Many justice collaborators are also given the same punishment as other suspects or defendants. This means that the role of disclosing a criminal act is not taken by law enforcement officials considerately at all, especially the regulations that regulate it.

In the case of justice collaborator, namely Agus Condro Prayitno, who is a member of the DPR RI from the PDI-P faction in Commission IX for the 1999-2004 period. Agus Condro together with 4 other defendants were involved in the process of selecting members of the Senior Deputy Governor of Indonesian Bank which was held on June 8, 2004 at the Nusantara I building of the Indonesian Parliament, and one of the participants was Miranda Swaray Gultom.

The defendants received alternative indictments from the Public Prosecutor, based on these alternative indictments, the Judges considered that the legal facts that occurred at the trial were more appropriate to prove the indictment of the Public Prosecutor on the second indictment. Apart from considering legal facts to prove the elements in the indictment, the Judges in passing the verdict, should considered the Defense Note from Agus Condro's Legal Advisory Team who did not refute or object the Public Prosecutor's juridical analysis in the criminal indictment, but they only asked the Judges to give a judgment with a justice dimension, considering that the defendant was a justice collaborator, supported by a letter from the Witnesses & Victims Protection Institution No.R.0706/1.3/LPSK/05/2011, dated 27 May 2011, which basically concerns about law leniency.

The verdict about the prison punishment imposed on Agus Condro Prayitno can be said to be lighter when compared to other defendants in the same case. In this case, it can be seen that there is criminal mitigation for the perpetrators that are participating in justice. It is a contradiction if we consider the perpetrators of the criminal acts of participation, their penalties have been heavier.

However, this can be a boomerang for the disclosure of a criminal act due to neglect of the role of the justice collaborator which can cause a bad prejudice in the future, considering that the role of justice collaborator is an attempt to discover larger cases, especially the organized crime, in particular, a criminal act of corruption, so that protection and appreciation must be maximized considering the risks faced by the justice collaborator are very serious which can harm physically or non-physically.

The desire to know more about everything related to the application of participation (deelneming) and justice collaborators in criminal acts of corruption. The purpose of this study is to determine the forms of participation of the Justice Collaborator in the criminal acts of corruption and to find out legal protection for perpetrators of justice collaborator in the criminal acts of corruption.

35. Method

In this research method the writer uses a normative juridical research method, which is carried out by examining library materials or this research focuses on the doctrines or principles in legal science. In this study, the writer used a statutory approach method, namely a normative research that has to use legislation, because what will be examined is the rule of law which is the focus and the central theme of a study. And the nature of this research is descriptive research which tries to explain precisely the symptoms of the emergence of justice collaborators in Indonesia. Therefore this research is a normative juridical study, this research emphasizes the use of secondary data, the data that is obtained from library materials without the need to be obtained directly from the public.

Data processing in normative research emphasizes on theoretical speculative steps and qualitative normative analysts. In this study, the writer used a descriptive analysis method, it means that it presented secondary data, which was obtained from both library research and document studies, in the next step, it will be compiled, described, and interpreted to obtain answers and conclusions related to the problems discussed in this study.

61. The Forms of The Justice Collaborator Perpetrator in The Criminal Acts of Corruption

Corruption is a very serious problem, because it can endanger the stability and security of the nation and state, and endanger the social, political and economic development of the society. It can even damage the democratic values ​​and morality of the nation because it can have an impact on the culture of the criminal act of corruption. Being aware of the impact of corruption, the efforts to eradicate corruption have received serious attention from both the government and the public, so that the current criminal act of corruption is also called an extraordinary crime.

According to Syed Hussein Alatas, the practice of corruption includes the following characteristics;^[5]

1. Corruption always involves more than one person

2. Corruption is generally carried out in full secrecy
3. Various kinds of corruption will take cover behind the legal justifications

4. Corruption always involves elements of obligation and profit

5. Those who are involved in criminal acts of corruption are those who want firm decisions and they influence the decisions

6. Acts of corruption contain fraud, either legal entities or the general public.

Of course, the role and function of each actor of corruption varies from one to another, whether as a person who commits, orders to do or participates in doing it. This is because corruption can occur because of cooperation or the common language is "collusion" in a project or activity, such as appointing a winner in an auction project.

The modus operandi of the perpetrators of the criminal act of corruption can be carried out in collaboration or in criminal law known as participation (deelneming). For example, there is a relationship between the executor of a job or a project, in an activity the prices of goods and services are increased by the working parties, which in the end will be the benefit of the employer and the recipient of the job, this mode of initiative can come from both parties.

The criminal act of corruption can be committed by more than one person who has different roles, the criminal accountability is also different based on their role. In this case, the leader or people who have the authority, of course, has a greater or higher criminal responsibility as a perpetrator (plager) or who orders to do it (doen pleger). Meanwhile, subordinates or people who have lower authority will be charged as medeplegen.

Furthermore, the concept of justice collaborator teaching is essentially the same as the concept of the participation in the provisions of Article 55 of the Criminal Code, where a person is involved in a criminal act of corruption and they (justice collaborator) themselves reports cases of corruption to law enforcement officials that occur in several possible ways, such as people who participate with other people who are involved in criminal acts of corruption and people who commit corruption by the suggestion of other people, as well as people who help other people in committing corruption.^[6]

One of the requirements of the justice collaborator is that they are the suspects but not the main actor, in relation to these requirements, so the teaching of criminal law here is participation. Participation itself is regulated in articles 55 of the Criminal Code and 56 of the Criminal Code, the forms referred to in that article are :

• People who do or doers (pleger)

• The one who ordered to do (doen pleger)

• People who participate in doing (medepleger)

• Maker of the advocate (uitlokker)

• People who help in doing (medeplichtigheid)

SEMA No. 4 of 2011 does not explain the meaning of "not the main actor", but the writer will explain the form of participation in justice collaborator which is accompanied by cases, so the writer refers more to the person who ordered to do it (uitlokker) and the person who participated in it (medepleger).

An act that can be categorized as medepleger is that at least two people must be involved, the person who does it (pleger) and the person who participates in it (medepleger). It is said to have participated in doing it because they (justice collaborator) were directly involved with the perpetrator in committing a criminal act, not only helping or being involved in preparatory actions. This means that between the people involved in doing this and the perpetrators, there must be cooperation consciously and deliberately.

Medepleger itself has three different characteristics from other forms of participation. First, the execution of a criminal act is carried out by two or more people. Second, everyone involved in a criminal act cooperates physically in its execution. Third, the occurrence of physical cooperation is not accidental, but indeed there has been cooperation that was planned before.

The next is uitlokker, as in the form of ordering to do in uitlokker should also have two or more people, each of whom is a person who recommends or is also called an intellectualist actor and a person who is recommended or also called a materialist actor. The advocate form is an intellectual actor and the one who recommends the other people are materialist actors that commit criminal acts. Recommendation is a person who encourages other people to commit a criminal act, where the other person is moved to fulfill their recommendation because they are tempted or influenced by the efforts made by the advocate as stipulated in Article 55 paragraph 1-2 of the Criminal Code.

Based on that explanation, there are four important characteristics of uitlokker, as follows:^[7]

1. Involves two people, where one party acts as an intellectual actor, a person who encourages another person to commit a criminal act and the other party is called a materialist actor, a person who carries out a criminal act by the recommendation of an intellectualist actor

2. Intellectualis actor moved the heart or attitude of the actor materialist so they did criminal act, by the efforts of :

1. Give something or promise something
2. Misusing the power of intellectual actors
3. Using threats that are misleading to materialist actors
4. Provide opportunities, mediums or information to materialist actors
5. Using violence or compulsion but not up to is also a force, so that material actors still have the freedom to determine their attitudes.

3. The occurrence of criminal acts of materialist actors must really be the result of the influence or persuaded by intellectual actors

4. Normatively, materialist actors are people who can be criminally responsible for the criminal act committed.

Participation is used as a reference in the process of disclosing the facts of a criminal act of corruption, given the complexity of the corruption polemic that has been rampant in Indonesia as well as the criminal act of corruption. By involving the participation of a justice collaborator contained in article 55 of the Criminal Code, if it can discover all actions that are structured by corrupt actors. The information provided by the justice collaborator included in the provisions of Article 55 of the Criminal Code must be given physical and psychological protection. The state must be able to guarantee the security of justice collaborator when their testimony is asked. Because at this time, the criminalization that has been carried out greatly impacts the fears of justice collaborators who assist the law enforcement officials in disclosing corruption crimes.

IV. The Legal Protection of The Justice Collaborator Perpetrator in The Criminal Acts of Corruption

1. The Legal Protection of The Justice Collaborator Perpetrator in The Criminal Acts of Corruption

According to the writer, the forms of justice collaborator actors (in the previous chapter) are people who order (uitlokker) and those who participate (medepleger). Because they (justice collaborators) are involved in a criminal act of corruption but are not the main perpetrator. The information provided by the justice collaborator included in the provisions jo. Article 55 of the Criminal Code must be given legal protection. The state is obliged to provide security guarantees to justice collaborators when they are asked for their testimony, because at this time the criminalization that is being carried out will have an impact on the fear of justice collaborators who assist law enforcement officials in disclosing criminal acts of corruption.

Furthermore, a defendant in a corruption case is not always a justice collaborator. A defendant must fulfill several conditions which have been stipulated by the regulations. Anyone who dares to reveal who the perpetrators are involved in corruption, given the high risk they face, because corruption is usually carried out by people who have important positions in the country. Every person who dares to take this risk, the state provides special protection and appreciation for their services. The provisions of justice collaborator itself are regulated in several regulations, as follows :

1. Law Number 13 of 2006 Jo. Law Number 31 of 2014 about Witnesses and Victims Protection

2. Joint Regulation of the Minister of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia, Attorney General of the Republic of Indonesia, Chief of the National Police of the Republic of Indonesia, Corruption Eradication Commission of the Republic of Indonesia, Chairman of the Witnesses and Victims Protection Institution of the Republic of Indonesia Number: M.HH-11.HM..03.02.th.2011 Number: 4 of 2011 about Protection for the reporting parties, the reporting witnesses and collaborating actor’s witnesses (Joint Regulations about Witnesses Protection for Reporting Parties, Reporting Witnesses and Collaborating Actor's Witnesses)

3. Supreme Court Circular No. 4 of 2011 about the Treatment of Criminal Action Reporters (whistleblowers) and perpetrators' witnesses who cooperate (justice collaborator) in certain cases

The meaning of a reporting witness and a collaborating actor's witness in joint regulation is that a reporting witness is a person who sees, hears, experiences or is related to a criminal act and reports allegations of the occurrence of a criminal act by an official who is authorized to be investigated in accordance with the provisions of the applicable laws.

Meanwhile, collaborating actor's witnesses are witnesses who are also perpetrators of a criminal act who are willing to help law enforcement officials to reveal a crime or a criminal act that will occur to return the assets or proceeds of a crime to the state by providing information to law enforcement officials by giving testimony in the criminal justice process.

Meanwhile, the Witnesses and Victims Protection Law defines whistleblower as a reporter in the provisions of article 1 point 4, which means a person who provides reports and information to law enforcers regarding a criminal act that will, is currently, or has occurred. Whereas justice collaborator as a perpetrator witness in the provisions of article 1 point 2 means a suspect, defendant, or convict who collaborates with law enforcement to disclose a criminal act in the same case. Based on this explanation, it can be concluded that the difference between whistleblowers and justice collaborators lies in the status of both. ^[8]

The granting of justice collaborator status cannot easily be granted to perpetrators of criminal acts of corruption and granting relief from criminal charges there are requirements in statutory regulations that must be fulfilled by perpetrators and law enforcement officials. The regulations are Law Number 13 of 2006 jo. Law Number 31 of 2014 about Witnesses and Victims Protection and Law Number 31 of 1999 jo. Law 20 of 2001 about the Eradication of The Criminal Acts of Corruption. These conditions are as follows:^[9]

1. The criminal act disclosed is a criminal act in certain cases based on the decision of the LPSK as referred to in article 5 paragraph 2 justice collaborator is only really needed to reveal an organized and serious crime. In the provisions of Article 5 paragraph 2, these criminal acts include criminal acts of human rights violations, corruption, terrorism, money laundering, psychotropic crimes, narcotics crimes, sexual crimes and other crimes that result in the position of witnesses and/or the victim is faced with a situation that is very life-threatening.

2. The importance of the information provided by justice collaborators in disclosing a certain criminal act is an important factor in determining whether the person concerned is entitled to the protection. One of the measures is that without evidence, information or testimony from the person concerned, a criminal act cannot or is very difficult to reveal or prove in court because there is no evidence from other sources.

3. Not as the main perpetrator in the criminal act it discloses; In connection with this provision, the criminal law used here is participation. Participation itself is regulated in article 55 of the Criminal Code, there are types of perpetrators who can be punished as someone who has committed a criminal act, those are: a. The person who did or the perpetrator (pleger) b. The person who ordered to do (doen pleger) c. People who participate in doing (medepleger) d. Maker of advocates (uitlokker) e. People who help to do or a helper (medeplichtigheid).

4. Willingness to return the assets obtained by the criminal act committed and stated in a written statement; The return of a number of assets obtained from the criminal act concerned is considered as a form of recognition which is an important aspect of offering so that the abolition of prosecution can be carried out effectively. By being willing to return the assets obtained from the criminal act, the perpetrator's witness has acknowledged the crime that was committed

5. Obtain a written recommendation from the LPSK to the public prosecutor to be included in the indictment to the judge in the provisions of Article 10 paragraph 4 of the Law about Witnesses and Victims Protection

6. Obtain a written recommendation from the LPSK to the Minister who administers government affairs in the field of law in the provisions of Article 10 paragraph 5 of the Law about Witnesses and Victims Protection.

A perpetrator in a criminal act of corruption is not necessarily a justice collaborator. A perpetrator must fulfill several requirements stipulated by the prevailing regulations. Law No. 13 of 2006 jo. Law No. 31 of 2014 (is the current regulation). The requirements to become a justice collaborator are contained in the provisions of Article 28 paragraph 2 jo. Article 10 paragraph 4 of the Law about the witnesses and victims protection.

1. The Analysis of The Legal Protection of The Justice Collaborator Perpetrator in The Criminal Acts of Corruption

According to Philipus M. Hadjon, there are 2 (two types) of legal protection, preventive legal protection and repressive legal protection. In preventive legal protection aims to prevent disputes, while repressive legal protection aims to resolve disputes.

Protection of witnesses and victims is a guarantee of rights provided by the state so that it has implications for the government's obligation to protect the rights of witnesses and victims, in terms of legal substance that has been stipulated.

Legal protection is a description of the functioning of the legal system to realize the objectives of law, namely legal justice, legal certainty, and legal benefits. Legal protection is a legal protection provided by legal subjects based on legal rules, whether it is preventive or repressive (imposing), both written and unwritten in the framework of law enforcement. Various efforts have been made to eradicate criminal acts of corruption, both preventive and repressive.

Preventive protection is protection provided by the government with the aim of preventing before a violation occurs (the law prevents disputes from occurring).

Repressive protection is protection in the form of sanctions such as fines, imprisonment, and additional penalties that are given when a dispute has occurred or has committed an offense (law aims to resolve disputes).

Therefore, according to the writer, a form of protection for the perpetrators of justice collaborator still dominated by the form of repressive protection (after the occurrence of an offense or violation) because protection is given in the form of sanctions such as relief from criminal imposition; or parole, additional remission, and the other rights of prisoners based on the provisions of regulations for the status of prisoners as contained in the Witnesses and Victims Protection Law.

Protection arrangements for justice collaborator perpetrators in criminal acts of corruption, as previously described, are quite adequate in the regulatory aspect, this is proven by changes in several and the appearance of several provisions of regulations that guarantee justice collaborator perpetrators. Law Number 13 Year 2006 in conjunction with Law Number 31 Year 2014 guarantees the rights of justice collaborator perpetrators and also several other regulations.

But in its implementation (enforcement) is not able to provide the maximum, this can be measured by the lack of reporters who dare to reveal their testimony as well as the public's mistaken perceptions that are still against witnesses. For this reason, it is necessary to explore the problem in depth to find the right solution to consider the formation of a new law.

Conceptually, the legal protection provided to the society is an implementation of the principle of recognition and protection of human dignity which originates from Pancasila. In essence, every human being has the right to legal protection. Almost all legal relations must receive legal protection. Therefore there are lots of legal protections. Among the types and kinds of legal protection, such as legal protection for the justice collaborator perpetrator. Legal protection of justice collaborators is regulated in a law about the protection of witnesses and victims, the regulation included all of the things that became the rights and obligations of the witnesses and victims.

22. Conclusion

Justice collaborator perpetrator or perpetrator witness who collaborates is a suspect, defendant, prisoner who collaborates with law enforcement to reveal a similar crime. The concept of justice collaborator is essentially the same as the concept of the participation in the provisions of Article 55 of the Criminal Code, which a person is involved in a criminal act of corruption and they (justice collaborator) themselves report a criminal act of corruption to law enforcement officials that occurs in several cases, possibly such as people who participate with other people who are involved in criminal acts of corruption and people who commit corruption by the suggestion of other people and people who help other people in committing corruption.

The form of protection for justice collaborator perpetrator is still dominated by repressive protection (after a violation) because the protection provided is in the form of sanctions such as relief from criminal charges; or conditional release, additional remission, and other rights of the prisoners based on the statutory provisions for the status of prisoners as contained in the Witness and Victim Protection Law.

Suggestions that can be given from this research are the need of special regulations for justice collaborators which include procedures, criteria, institutions that provide assistance and the amount of reduced penalties and rewards obtained by justice collaborators so that they are willing to expose criminal acts, especially corruption that is rampant in Indonesia. And it needs legal reform for the protection of justice collaborators (Restorative justice).

Acknowledgments

The writer would like to thank the family, colleagues and the writers whose writings enrich the literature in this scientific article. Hopefully for all the dedication in their life, it will always provide benefits around them.

References

Books with an author:

Moeljatno,1993, Asas-Asas Hukum Pidana, Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Chaerudin, 2008, Strategi Pencegahan & Penegakan Hukum Tindak Pidana Korupsi, Bandung: Refika Aditama.

Mulyadi, Lilik, 2015 Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Whistleblower dan Justice Collaborator Dalam Upaya Penanggulangan Organized Crime di Indonesia, Alumni, Bandung

Philipus M. Hadjon,1987, Perlindungan Bagi Rakyat Indonesia, Surabaya:PT.Bina Ilmu.

Rasyid Ariman,2013, Hukum Pidana, Palembang:Unsri Pers.

Syed Hussein Alatas, 2003, “Korupsi, Sifat, Sebab dan Fungsi” (Jakarta:LP3ES)

Journal articles:

Reza Fitra dan Winarno Budi Amanto. (2018) Peringanan Penjatuhan Pidana sebagai bentuk penghargaan untuk saksi pelaku yang bekerjasama (JC)”. Journal Recidive Vol. 7 No. 2.

River Yohanes. (2005) “justice collaborator dalam tindak pidana korupsi” Jurnal Lex Crimen Vol IV.No 01

Herman Sitompul(2019) “Penyertaan dalam tindak pidana korupsi” Journal Hukum dan Keadilan Volume 6 Nomor 22

rule:

Criminal Code (KUHP)

Law Number 20 of 2001 about the Eradication of The Criminal Acts of Corruption.

Law Number 13 Year 2006 in conjunction with Law Number 31 Year 2014 about the change of Law Number 13 Year 2006 about Witnesses and Victims Protection

Supreme Court Circular No. 4 of 2011 about the Treatment of Criminal Action Reporters (whistleblowers) and perpetrators' witnesses who cooperate (justice collaborator) in certain cases.

Joint Regulation of the Minister of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia, Attorney General of the Republic of Indonesia, Chief of the National Police of the Republic of Indonesia, Corruption Eradication Commission of the Republic of Indonesia, Chairman of the Witnesses and Victims Protection Institution of the Republic of Indonesia Number: M.HH-11.HM..03.02.th.2011 Number: 4 of 2011 about Protection for the reporting parties, the reporting witnesses and collaborating actor’s witnesses (Joint Regulations about Witnesses Protection for Reporting Parties, Reporting Witnesses and Collaborating Actor's Witnesses)

Other regulations that are relevant.