Borobudur Law and Society Journal

A football match organising committee is expected to guarantee the safety of players and spectators, yet the Kanjuruhan tragedy of 1 October 2022 shows how hard it is to attribute criminal responsibility when a riot, a crowd crush and police use of tear gas occur together. This study asks on what provisions, under what elements and within what limits an organising committee can be held criminally responsible for a riot, and how that responsibility differs from that of the league operator, the football association and the police. It is normative legal research using statutory, case and conceptual approaches. The materials are the Criminal Code, Law No 11 of 2022 on Sport, the PSSI Statutes and Safety and Security Regulations, FIFA rules, police regulations, the report of the government fact-finding team and press accounts of the trials. The study finds that responsibility of the committee rests on negligence under Articles 359 and 360 of the Criminal Code and, separately, on Article 103 of Law No 11 of 2022; that the committee’s omissions on ticketing, evacuation and preparation were concurrent causes beside the firing of tear gas; and that the proposed characterisation of the events as a crime against humanity is not supported. Regulation of stadium safety, clear command responsibility and licensing of organisers are needed.