<p>a. The place of crime is committed (locus delicti)</p>
<p>According to M. Yahya Harahap (ibid pp. 96-97), this is the first and foremost principle or criterion. The District Court has the authority to adjudicate every criminal case committed in its jurisdiction. This is confirmed in Article 84 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code which reads:</p>
<p>"The district court has the authority to hear all cases concerning criminal acts committed in its jurisdiction."</p>
<p>The principle or criterion used in this article is "place of crime committed" or called locus delicti. M. Yahya Harahap said that the principle was based on the place where the crime took place. At the place where the crime is committed or in the legal area of ​​the District Court where the crime is committed, the District Court is authorized to try. This principle is a general provision in determining relative authority. The first thing to be investigated determines the authority not to examine a case that the public prosecutor delegates based on the "place of occurrence" of the crime. The District Court examines whether the crime occurred in its jurisdiction. If it has already happened in the realm of his jurisdiction, he is authorized to examine and judge him. Conversely, if the result of the research shows that a criminal act is committed outside its jurisdiction, it is not authorized to examine and adjudicate it and the Chairperson of the District Court concerned submits the case to the District Court which he deems as authorized, by issuing a letter of "stipulation".</p>
<p>b. The defendant's residence and the residence of most of the witnesses who were summoned</p>
<p>M. Yahya Harahap (Ibid, pp. 99-100) explained that the second principle determines the relative authority based on where most witnesses live. If a witness who wishes to be called is mostly residing or closer to a District Court, the District Court is the most authorized to examine and try. This principle is regulated in Article 84 paragraph (2) KUHAP (and at the same time excludes or eliminates the principle of locus delicti) which reads:</p>
<p>"The district court in the jurisdiction of the defendant resides, lives last, where he is found or detained, only has the authority to try the defendant's case, if the residence of most of the witnesses who are called closer to the district court than the seat of the district court in the area the crime was committed. "</p>
<p>Furthermore, M. Yahya Harahap explained that the application of the principle of residence can occur in the following cases:</p>
<p>1. If the defendant resides in the District Court legal area where most of the witnesses who wish to be called reside.</p>
<p>In order for this principle to be applied, there are two conditions that must be met:</p>
<p>a) the defendant resides in the relevant District Court legal area.</p>
<p>b) most of the witnesses who wish to be called live in the jurisdiction of the district court.</p>
<p>With the fulfillment of these two conditions, the relative authority to try the defendant or examine the case, is transferred from the District Court where the criminal incident occurred to the District Court where the defendant resided.</p>
<p>2. The defendant's last residence</p>
<p>Terms that must be met:</p>
<p>a) the last defendant in the jurisdiction of a District Court.</p>
<p>b) most of the witnesses who wish to be called live in the district court's legal area.</p>
<p>So, if the defendant commits a crime in a legal area of ​​the District Court, it turns out the defendant is in the last residence in another District Court legal area. Likewise, most of the witnesses who wished to be called were residing or closer to the jurisdiction of the District Court where the defendant's last residence was located, the principle of locus delicti could be ruled out, and the authority to try was the District Court where the defendant's last residence.</p>
<p>3. Where the defendant was found</p>
<p>In addition, the place where the defendant was found can be used as a principle to determine the relative authority of the State Court of Justice by excluding the locus delicti with the following conditions:</p>
<p>a) the defendant was found in a legal area of ​​the District Court, as well as</p>
<p>b) witnesses who wish to be called mostly reside or are closer to the District Court where the defendant was found.</p>
<p>The defendant's place was found to override the locus delicti principle if the majority of witnesses who would be called resided or were closer to the District Court where the defendant was found.</p>
<p>Where the defendant was detained</p>
<p>4. The conditions are:</p>
<p>a) the place of detention of the defendant</p>
<p>b) witnesses who wish to be examined are mostly residing or closer to the District Court where the defendant was detained</p>