YOGYAKARTA One of the child perpetrators, AG, who was involved in the case of mistreatment David Ozora submitted a request for protection to the Witness and Victim Protection Agency (LPSK). The application turned out to be rejected. So what is the reason why the PLSK refuses to protect AG?
As is known, LPSK announced the request for an application submitted by AG to LPSK today. As a result, LPSK rejected AG's application. The decision was taken taking into account various things.
"It is rejected (a request for protection from AG, ed)," said Deputy Chairperson of LPSK Susilaningtyas to VOI, Tuesday, March 14.
The reason is as follows.
The reason for the rejection of LPSK was explained by the Chairman of LPSK Hasto Atmojo Suroyo. He said that the rejection was because the application did not meet the protection requirements as stipulated in Article 28 (1) letter a and letter d. The article explains the formal requirements for protection against witnesses and/or victims.
Article 28 (1) letter a regulates the importance of witness or victim testimony. Meanwhile, in the same article letter d relates to the track record of criminal acts committed by witnesses or victims.
Hasto also explained that AG's legal status as a applicant is a child who is in conflict with the law so that it is not included in the subjects of LPSK protection, as stipulated in Article 5 (3) of Law Number 31 of 2014.
"The legal status of the applicant as a child who is in conflict with the law, is not included in the subjects of LPSK protection," he said.
Although rejecting AG's application, the LPSK Leadership Court Session recommended the Ministry of Women's Empowerment and Child Protection (KemenPPPA) with a copy of KPAI. This recommendation is intended so that the two parties can assist AG, in particular ensuring that AG's rights are fulfilled during the criminal justice process as children in conflict with the law.
Meanwhile, the petition submitted by two witnesses in the same case, namely R and N, was received by LPSK. To R, the protection provided is in the form of fulfilling procedural rights. For N, the protection provided is the fulfillment of procedural rights and psychological rehabilitation.
As is known, AG submitted an application to LPSK on February 28. When submitting the application, AG was still a witness. LPSK itself procedurally has a maximum of 30 days to decide on the application for protection, whether to accept the application or vice versa.
AG itself was proven to be involved in the case of mistreatment of David Ozora and perpetrator Mario Dandy Satryo, son of the official Directorate General of Taxes at the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia who was named a suspect in severe persecution on February 20, 2023. The action took place at the Green Permata Complex, Pesanggrahan, South Jakarta.
The persecution was triggered by Mario's anger at hearing that AG received bad treatment from David. Anger then led to the persecution of the victim by Mario. When the persecution occurred, AG was said to have recorded. He also did not show empathy or sympathy when the persecution took place.
AG did not give anything, he was said to be engrossed in smoking when David was ordered to be asymptomatic in the form of a head position on the asphalt while his hands were on the back.
In addition to the reason LPSK refused to protect AG, VOI.ID agreed to get other interesting information.
The English, Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, and French versions are automatically generated by the AI. So there may still be inaccuracies in translating, please always see Indonesian as our main language. (system supported by DigitalSiber.id)
