The emergence of various cases of radicalism in universities is the responsibility of all parties. Various cases that occur in universities show that campuses in Indonesia are very vulnerable to being compiled by radical ideas and terrorism movements, even considered to have no clear curriculum direction in preventing radicalism and terrorism. This study aims to analyze three important things in the issue of radicalism and terrorism in universities, especially at Semarang State University, namely, first how radicalism prevention policies in universities (study at UNNES); second, how to implement policies to prevent radicalism and terrorism at UNNES; and third, how UNNES campus efforts to overcome students or lecturers exposed to radicalism and terrorism. The method used in this study is a mixed method that combines normative juridical research with empirical data in the field. The projected results of this study are in the form of real data regarding the implementation of religious freedom regulations on the UNNES campus. The output of this research is in the form of articles published in accredited national journals.

This study analyzes the dialectic of political interests in the recovery of assets from corruption through the Non-Conviction Based Asset Forfeiture (NCB) mechanism. Using a normative legal approach, the study reveals that NCB is a strategic solution to overcome the limitations of the conventional system, especially in cases where perpetrators flee or have immunity, with the potential to increase asset recovery by up to 40%. Findings indicate that political interests are hindering the enactment of the Asset Forfeiture Bill, despite NCB being mandated by the UNCAC 2003 and proven effective internationally. This study recommends accelerating the legislative process for the enactment of the Asset Forfeiture Bill, which could revolutionize the enforcement of criminal law against corruption in Indonesia

Corporations, as legal entities, can be held criminally liable for corruption offenses under Indonesian law. The legal framework in Indonesia recognizes corporations as subjects of criminal law, as outlined in Law No. 20 of 2001 concerning the Eradication of Corruption Crimes (UU Tipikor). However, there are still gaps in the law, particularly regarding main and additional penalties for corporate entities. The introduction of Law No. 1 of 2023 concerning the Criminal Code (KUHP Nusantara) addresses these shortcomings by providing more comprehensive regulations on corporate criminal liability, particularly for corruption-related offenses. This study employs a qualitative research approach, using legislative analysis, case law examination, and conceptual analysis. The research is doctrinal and juridical-normative, relying on literature studies and document analysis of statutory regulations and court decisions regarding corporate corruption. The study focuses on the corruption case involving PT. Sinarmas Asset Management (PT. SAM), where the corporation was held criminally liable under both the Anti-Corruption Law and the Indonesian Criminal Code. The research reveals that the Indonesian Criminal Code offers more detailed provisions, including additional penalties for corporations convicted of corruption. The case study also highlights significant legal developments in the trial process. Initially, the District Court convicted PT. SAM of corruption, but this verdict was overturned by the Jakarta High Court, which acquitted the company. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the lower courts and upheld the conviction, continuing to impose penalties on PT. SAM for the mismanagement of unauthorized funds. This case underscores the complexities of corporate criminal liability in corruption cases and the evolving nature of judicial interpretations of corporate accountability in Indonesia.

Freedom of opinion is the right of every individual from birth which has been guaranteed by the constitution, In interaction in society it is undeniable that there are always things that cause problems and one of them is insult or defamation. The regulation of defamation in the criminal law system in Indonesia has been regulated in Articles 310-320 of the Criminal Code. In Article 310 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) a person will be considered guilty of committing a criminal offense of insult or defamation according to the Criminal Code, Law Number 1 of 1946 concerning the Regulation of Criminal Acts, and Law Number 1 of 2024 concerning the Second Amendment to Law Number 11 of 2008 concerning Electronic Information and Transactions, On September 4, 2023 the petitioner in this case Haris Azhar, Fatiah Maulidiyanti and the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI) filed a lawsuit with the Constitutional Court to examine Law Number 1 of 1946 concerning Criminal Law Regulations, the Criminal Code, and Law Number 19 of 2016 concerning Amendments to Law Number 11 of 2008 concerning Electronic Information and Transactions to the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia Year 1945,  The impact of the Constitutional Court decision Number 78/PUU-XXI/2023 on the criminal act of insult or defamation in Indonesia finally 14 or article 15 of Law Number 1 of 1946 was declared unconstitutional and non-binding, then the regulation of defamation or insult all became absolute complaint offenses.

The stagnation of human rights enforcement in Indonesia's Reformation Era has highlighted a critical imbalance: the current system prioritizes punishing perpetrators of serious human rights violations over addressing the recovery and well-being of victims. This research introduces The Constitution of Peace as a transformative, victim-centered model for resolving serious human rights violations outside the courtroom, aligning with the principles and soul of the 1945 Constitution. The proposed model comprises three innovative approaches: first, mediation facilitated by the National Human Rights Commission to foster dialogue and accountability; second, the provision of compensation, restitution, and assistance to victims through the Witness and Victim Protection Agency, ensuring tangible support for recovery; and third, an official apology by the relevant authority, accompanied by the fulfillment of economic, social, and culpability obligations. Together, these measures aim to correct the limitations of the current retributive framework by prioritizing restorative justice and victim empowerment. By embracing these victim-oriented solutions, this model not only addresses the legal and moral obligations enshrined in the 1945 Constitution but also fosters reconciliation and societal healing. The research underscores the transformative potential of the Constitution as a foundation for peace, justice, and the resolution of entrenched human rights challenges. It calls for a paradigm shift from punitive measures to a more holistic approach, ensuring that justice serves both the dignity of victims and the broader goal of national harmony.