The court system, designed to pursue justice, often becomes a crucible of pain and scrutiny, especially when handling highly sensitive cases involving victims of trauma, sexual violence, or domestic abuse. These proceedings, often dubbed “Trial Uncomfortable” by observers, force a painful intersection between the necessary rigor of legal proof and the profound vulnerability of human experience. It is essential to engage in Reflecting on the Legal framework and its processes to understand how systemic practices can inadvertently re-traumatize victims and compromise justice. Reflecting on the Legal system’s approach in these contexts is not about undermining procedural fairness, but about ensuring that the pursuit of truth is conducted with dignity, respect, and specialized sensitivity.

---

The Adversarial Nature vs. Victim Vulnerability

The core challenge lies in the inherent adversarial nature of many legal systems. Defense attorneys are duty-bound to challenge testimony and scrutinize evidence, which often translates into rigorous cross-examination of victims. While this is necessary for the defendant’s right to a fair trial, the manner in which it is executed can feel like an attack on the victim’s credibility and character. This often forces victims to repeatedly recount deeply traumatic events in a public forum, a process known as secondary victimization or re-traumatization.

For instance, in the highly publicized Case No. 123/Pid.B/2025/PN.JKT.Sel, heard at the South Jakarta District Court on Thursday, October 2, 2025, the victim was cross-examined for over six hours. The details of the questioning, while legally permissible, drew criticism from legal aid organizations for their invasive nature. This highlights the urgent need for judicial and legal training to balance zealous advocacy with humanitarian considerations.

---

Specialized Training and Procedural Adjustments

To mitigate the discomfort and potential harm of “Trial Uncomfortable,” specific procedural and training reforms are necessary. One key measure is the adoption of trauma-informed practices. This requires judges and lawyers to recognize the physiological and psychological ways trauma affects memory and behavior, ensuring that a victim’s seemingly inconsistent testimony is not automatically dismissed as deception.

In Region X’s Appellate Court, new rules were implemented starting January 1, 2024, requiring all legal counsel involved in sexual assault cases to attend a mandatory 20-hour specialized training module on trauma-informed interviewing. Furthermore, many jurisdictions, upon the approval of the presiding judge (Judge Maria Santoso, S.H., M.H., for a particular juvenile case on June 19, 2025), now allow vulnerable witnesses to testify via closed-circuit television (CCTV) from a separate room. This small procedural adjustment significantly reduces the anxiety of facing the accused directly.

Furthermore, collaboration with support services is crucial. Police and legal aid teams must work together from the initial reporting stage. A victim who reports a crime to the Police Women and Children Protection Unit (PPA) at Polresta Bogor on a given Monday should immediately be linked with social workers and legal advocates to prepare them for the emotional and procedural demands ahead. Reflecting on the Legal obligation to protect victims is paramount to achieving true justice, making the system more human-centered without sacrificing fairness. This commitment to sensitivity ultimately strengthens the integrity of the entire judicial process.