Article 25 of HIR provides that in case the defendant does not appear at court process (verstek), the claim will be accepted unless it is unreasonable and against the rights. In the beginning, that article was interpreted that in case the defendant doesnâ€™t Â appear at court process (verstek), the plaintiff shall not obeyed to proof his claim. How is the development of that previous interpretation? Normative legal research has been conducted to redress that issue. The data were collected from secondary data resources from Sleman and Yogyakarta District Court decisions concerning the burden of proof Â in verstek recently, Â and being Â analizedÂ qualitatively. The research result shows that there is a development inÂ interpretating Article 125 HIR, where the judges burdened the plaintiff to proof his claim. That interpretation development supports the strive to get the truth beyond reasonable doubt, to meet a fair decision,Â as good as to avoid fraud claim, and haphazard decision.
Copyrights © 2019