Purpose: There are many cases of multiple marriage crimes committed by Indonesian Army soldiers who are subject to criminal penalties as stipulated in Article 279 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code; however, law enforcement is not concrete and consistent. Based on SEMA 3 of 2015, soldiers committing multiple marriage crimes must be dismissed from military service, but in Supreme Court Decision Number 108 K/MIL/2023, they were acquitted. Given this background, the author examines how law enforcement and the impact of the decision are carried out using qualitative normative legal research with a phenomenological and descriptive case approach. Research/methodology: This study applies normative legal research using a phenomenological and descriptive case study approach. The theories used are the theory of criminal responsibility and deterrence theory. Results: The study finds that law enforcement against Indonesian Army soldiers committing multiple marriage crimes is handled through the Military Justice system under Law Number 31 of 1997. However, the acquittal in the Supreme Court decision reflects inconsistency in law enforcement and potentially weakens its deterrent effects. Conclusions: Law enforcement is conducted through military courts based on applicable laws; however, inconsistencies, such as acquittals, may undermine legal certainty and discipline within the military. Limitation: This study is limited to one Supreme Court decision and its implications for the military justice system. Contribution: This study contributes to the understanding of how inconsistencies in military court rulings affect legal integrity, institutional trust, and deterrence in the context of military criminal law.

Purpose: This study analyzes the urgency of determining the Free Papua Movement (OPM) as a perpetrator of gross human rights violations in Indonesia from a legal perspective. The main focus is to understand and examine the legal consequences and social impacts of such a determination in enforcing justice and protecting human rights in Indonesia. Research/methodology: The research uses a normative legal research method with a descriptive-analytical approach. It relies on secondary data, including legal literature, laws and regulations, and the opinions of legal experts. Results: The study shows that OPM has committed various acts of violence that violate human rights, such as murder, torture, and kidnapping. Declaring OPM as a perpetrator of gross human rights violations is crucial to uphold the principles of justice and equality before the law, in line with national and international legal standards. Legal action against OPM not only aims to impose sanctions but also functions as a preventive measure to deter similar crimes in the future. Experts in human rights law stress the need for a proportional and effective governmental response to such cases. Conclusion: Determining OPM as a perpetrator of gross human rights violations is a necessary legal step to enforce justice, deter future crimes, and protect human rights in Indonesia. Limitations: The study is limited to secondary data without field verification or empirical assessment of the implementation challenges. Contribution: This research contributes to the development of legal science and offers strategic insights into the legal handling of gross human rights violations in Indonesia.

Purpose: This study aims to analyze the legal protection of children in conflict with the law within the Indonesian criminal justice system, particularly military minors. Article 33 of the Criminal Code and Law Number 11 of 2012 concerning the Juvenile Criminal Justice System are both central in regulating the judicial process for minors in military service. However, the potential contradiction between these two legal frameworks requires critical examination to ensure that children's rights are not violated. Research/methodology: This research uses a normative juridical approach. Data were collected through document analysis and literature study, including library research and other sources related to juvenile justice and military law. Results: The study finds that although both Article 33 of the Criminal Code and Law Number 11 of 2012 are designed to provide protection, their implementation in cases involving military minors may lead to legal uncertainty. There is a need for legal harmonization to uphold fair trial principles and to ensure that military minors are given the same special protections as other children in conflict with the law. Conclusion: Legal inconsistencies can negatively affect the rights of military minors. Reconciliation between general criminal law and juvenile justice law is necessary to create a more just legal framework. Limitation: This study is limited to legal analysis and does not involve empirical case data or interviews with practitioners. Contribution: The study contributes to legal scholarship by highlighting the urgency of synchronizing juvenile justice with military regulations, ensuring fair legal treatment for all minors.