LPSK Responds to Mario Dandy's Team Regarding Restitution: It's a Victim's Right, Not to Find Money

Illustration (Photo: DOK ANTARA)

JAKARTA - The Witness and Victim Protection Agency (LPSK) responded to Mario Dandy Satriyo's statement regarding restitution or compensation of IDR 100 billion in the case of serious abuse of David Ozora.

LPSK Deputy Chairman Susilaningtyas said that there was no intention of targeting Rafael Alun Trisambo's assets as Mario Dandy Satriyo's father behind the request for restitution.

"Restitution is the right of a crime victim, not wanting to get Mario's parents' property," Susi told VOI, Friday, June 16.

The basis for restitution as a right for victims of crime is contained in Law number 31 of 2014 concerning amendments to Law number 13 of 2006 concerning the protection of witnesses and victims.

Then, restitution was also contained in Government Regulation Number 43 of 2017. Thus, the submission made by the LPSK had no intention of obtaining or controlling the assets of Mario Dandy's family.

"Where a victim of a crime has the right to get restitution," said Susi.

In fact, when referring to the testimony of David's father, Jonathan Latumahina, during the trial some time ago, he stated that he was not too concerned about compensation or restitution for his son.

The reason, compensation in the form of money will not be comparable to what has been experienced by David. Except, the perpetrator of the persecution was also put into a coma.

"Because for me, I don't think about money values and other things. There's nothing comparable unless the perpetrators were carried out the same way, putting them in a coma is just comparable in my opinion," Jonathan said while testifying at trial.

Previously, Mario Dandy Satriyo's team through his lawyer, Andreas Nahot Silitonga, seemed to be insinuating that the request for restitution was for profit.

"So if you want to target the property of his father (Rafael Alun Trisambodo) don't go this way," said Andreas.

According to him, in restitution, the litigant must pay it. However, for this condition, the client is just a student who doesn't have any assets.

All the facilities he owns, such as his vehicle and house, are owned by his parents. Moreover, Mario Dandy's parents have no obligation to pay the restitution.

"Because it's not his father who committed a crime that will be punished as the party responsible for the restitution. I think we both know students haven't worked yet. I also don't know if there are assets in his name, so if it's not on his behalf, it cannot be withdrawn to make changes to the restitution," he said.