bona fides
Geslacht:
Studieomgeving (BA): UL Studieomgeving (MA): UL Berichten: 22893
|
Geplaatst: do 27 jul 2017 1:26 Onderwerp: |
|
|
Eigen waarneming rechter (art. 339 lid 1 sub 1 and 340 Sv) is evidence that is obtained by the judge through his own observation during the hearing. For example, objects may be shown to him.
I wouldn't call this indirect evidence. In a way evidence cannot be more direct: the judge made the observation himself rather than having to rely on a witness or expert statement.
Comparing art. 184 KUHAP with art. 339 lid 1 Sv, all categories of evidence match nicely except for indication/eigen waarneming rechter:
- testimony of a witness/verklaringen van een getuige
- information by an expert/verklaringen van een deskundige
- a letter/schriftelijke bescheiden
- the statement of a defendant/verklaringen van den verdachte
Art. 184(2) KUHAP also matches art. 339 lid 2 Sv perfectly.
EIgen waarneming rechter certainly does not coincide with "indication" as defined in Art. 188 KUHAP. But I suppose that in practice what is brought in via "indication" in Indonesia will be brought in via "eigen waarneming rechter" in The Netherlands. Art. 188 KUHAP does ask the judge to evaluate the "indication". On the other hand, Art. 188(2) requires an indication to be obtained from one of (a) the testimony of a witness, (b) a letter, (c) a statement by a defendant. That seems to make it difficult to, let's say, play a video tape in court (which would result in "eigen waarneming rechter" of the contents of the video tape in a Dutch court).
So how do Indonesian courts deal with, say, evidence in the form of a video tape? Would a police officer have to watch the tape and write down what he sees? (I haven't read the whole KUHAP, so I may be missing something .) _________________ Hanc marginis exiguitas non caperet. |
|