Ask SBY As a witness, the Democrats Have Yusril Be Knight

HAM Menkum Patrialis Akbar spoke about the desire to SBY Yusril Ihza Mahendra testify for him. For Patrialis, the request was irrelevant and there is no legal obligation for defense witnesses to be present at the examination if called investigators. In the case Sisminbakum, Patrialis claimed had asked the Inspector General and Director General of   General Legal Administration. According to him, they were never formally report to the President related Sisminbakum. If all cases in this republic that the millions, then the President asked the defense witnesses, it had no relevance. It makes the president can not work. Patrialis initiated because of love of the republic and the position of President merekai is the legal counsel if litigation in the Constitutional Court. The Court partially granted the petition of former Justice Minister Yusril Ihza Mahendra who perform judicial review of Law No. 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedure. Yusril previously requested the testing of Article 1 number 26 and number 27 in conjunction with Article 65 in conjunction with Article 116 paragraph (3) and paragraph (4) in conjunction with Article 184 paragraph (1) letter (a) of Law No. 8 of 1981 on Criminal Code (Criminal Code) against MK. In its consideration of the Constitutional Court to assess the significance of the witness does not lie in whether he saw, heard, or experienced yourself a criminal event. But rather on the relevance of his testimony with any criminal matter that is being processed. In addition, the Constitutional Court judge is not permitted investigators to assess the statements of witnesses favorable suspect or defendant before actually check it. Obligations of investigators to examine witnesses favorable to the accused is not paired with the authority of investigators to assess whether the proposed witness is relevant or not with an alleged criminal case before the witness is called and examined.