This legal research analyzes the implications of the non-self-incrimination
principle within the Draft Criminal Procedure Code (RUU KUHAP) on the rights
of suspects and defendants. This study employs a normative legal research
method , analyzing primary legal materials such as the existing Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP) and various drafts of the RUU KUHAP, as well as
secondary materials including books, journals, and legal doctrines. The analysis
reveals a fundamental conflict within the RUU KUHAP between the pragmatic
needs of law enforcement and the protection of the non self incrimination
principle. While the current KUHAP implicitly accommodates this right , the
RUU KUHAP introduces the concept of a crown witness, which is conceptually
inconsistent with the principle. The implications for the rights of the accused are twofold: on one hand, it can be an effective tool against organized crime , but on the other, it poses significant risks. These risks include the potential for false testimony motivated by incentives, the erosion of the presumption of innocence, and a weakening of the right to remain silent. Therefore, the RUU KUHAP, in its current formulation, is not fully harmonized with human rights guarantees and may sacrifice procedural justice for law enforcement effectiveness.