This study explores high school students' perceptions and awareness of human rights violations (HRV) on social media. Using a mixed-method approach involving interviews and questionnaires with 100 students from five schools in Pekanbaru, the research reveals that the majority of students recognize various HRV issues such as hate speech, cyberbullying, discrimination, and privacy violations, and understand their impacts. Approximately 75% of students feel responsible to report HRV incidents, though some hesitate due to fear or perceived helplessness. While most students are familiar with the term HR, only 60% can accurately define protected rights like privacy and freedom from bullying. The average awareness score is 7.5 out of 10, influenced by socio-economic background and parental education. Findings indicate that 70% have witnessed hate speech, 55% have experienced or observed cyberbullying, and 60% acknowledge that spreading hoaxes infringes on the right to information. A significant majority (85%) agree that HR education should be integrated into school curricula. Despite high awareness levels, students' understanding of the boundaries and consequences of digital expression remains limited, highlighting the need for ongoing educational interventions and curriculum development in digital ethics and human rights. The study emphasizes the importance of continuous literacy programs and recommends further research with broader geographic scope and qualitative methods to deepen understanding.

AbstrakPT. Batavia Prosperindo Finance (Penggugat) adalah badan hukum jasa pembiayaan yang memberikan pinjaman kepada almarhum suami Ny. Mubaroh (Tergugat) sebesar Rp. 92.100.500,- . Pinjaman tersebut diberikan dengan jaminan berupa mobil Honda CRV 2.4 A T tahun 2008. Peminjaman uang diikat dengan perjanjian pembiayaan multiguna dengan jaminan penyerahan secara fidusia dengan nomor perjanian 0403/2190133 tanggal 31 Juli 2019. Tergugat menyetujui sebagai penjamin dari alm suami tergugat sebagai debitur. Perjanjian tersebut dilakukan perpanjangan waktu dari 36 kali cicilan menjadi 42 kali cicilan, hingga seharusnya angsuran terakhir Desember 2022. Namun sejak 24 November 2020 tergugat telah menunggak pembayaran cicilan hingga saat ini, hingga akhirnya Penggugat melayangkan gugatan untuk meletakkan sita atas objek jaminan.Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui apakah dapat dilakukan peletakan sita jaminan atas objek jaminan fidusia berdasarkan perjanjian pembiayaan yang di buat di bawah tangan dan untuk mengetahui akibat hukum atas objek jaminan fidusia berdasarkan studi kasus atas Putusan Nomor 19/Pdt.G/2021/PN Jpa. Metode penelitian ini adalah yuridis normatif. Berdasarkan putusan Nomor 19/Pdt.G/2021/PN Jpa Pengadilan Negeri Jepara memutuskan untuk mengabulkan sebagian dari gugatan penggugat. Sita jaminan yang merupakan salah satu petitum tidak dilkabulkan karena Hakim berpendapat bahwa objek jaminan tersebut tidak pernah dilakukan pelaksanaan sita jaminan oleh Pengadilan Negeri selama proses persidangan berlangsung. Meskipun objek jaminan fidusia tidak diletakkan sita namun karena Pengadilan Negeri telah menyatakan Tergugat wanprestasi maka objek tersebut dapat dilakukan eksekusi oleh Penggugat.  AbstractPT. Batavia Prosperindo Finance (Plaintiff) is a financial services legal entity that provides loans to the late husband of Mrs. Mubaroh (Defendant) amounting to Rp. 92.100.500,- . The loan is provided with collateral in the form of a 2008 Honda CRV 2.4 A T. The loan is bound by a multipurpose financing agreement with a fiduciary guarantee of delivery with the agreement number 0403/2190133 dated July 31, 2019. The Defendant agreed to act as guarantor from the defendant's late husband as the debtor. The agreement was extended from 36 installments to 42 installments, until the last installment should be December 2022. However, since November 24, 2020, the defendant has been in arrears in payment of the installments until now, until finally the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit to place the confiscation of the object of collateral. is to find out how to confiscate a fiduciary guarantee object based on a financing agreement made under the hand and to find out the legal consequences of a fiduciary guarantee object based on a case study on Decision Number 19/Pdt.G/2021/PN Jpa. This research method is normative juridical. Based on the decision Number 19/Pdt.G/2021/PN Jpa, the District Court decided to grant part of the plaintiff's claim. The bail confiscation which is one of the petitions was not granted because the Judge was of the opinion that the object of the guarantee was never carried out by the District  Court during the trial process. Although the object of the fiduciary guarantee is not confiscated, but because the District Court has declared the Defendant to be in default, the object can be executed by the Plaintiff.