Balancing Double Jeopardy and Fair Trial: Upholding Human Rights in Indonesia’s Legal System

This article explores the conflict between the principle of double jeopardy and the fair trial right, with a focus on Indonesia’s legal system. The fair trial principle, a cornerstone of international human rights law, guarantees individuals the right to a just and impartial legal process. However, Indonesia's Law No. 7/2017 and Government Regulations No. 11/2017 introduce provisions that seem to undermine this principle, particularly through the application of double jeopardy. This research employs normative or doctrinal legal methods, using a literature review to examine relevant theories, principles, and legal norms. The study concludes in three key findings: First, the fair trial principle, which includes elements like the ne bis in idem and una via principles, is a binding component of international human rights law that must be adhered to by state parties, including Indonesia. Second, the provisions on double jeopardy in Indonesian law, particularly within Law No. 7/2017 and Government Regulations No. 11/2017, violate human rights by compromising human dignity and not providing true justice. Third, to ensure the protection of the fair trial principle, Indonesia should abolish the double jeopardy provisions in these laws, adopting a “one punishment for one act” approach, where further penalties should serve as guidance rather than retribution. This research contributes to the ongoing discourse on the intersection of human rights, legal reform, and justice in Indonesia, advocating for necessary legal changes to better protect individuals' rights in the criminal justice system.