Visum et Repertum (VER) financing regulated in KUHAP Article 136 and Law No.36 of 2009 article 125 is different from VER financing stipulated in Presidential Regulation No. 82/2018, Permenkes RI no. 71 of 2013, and PERKAPOLRI no. 5 of 2014. The research method used is the library research method (Library Research). The formulation of the problem in this research is how the legal arrangements governing VER financing as a form of protection for victims, what are the constraints on VER financing as a form of protection for victims, how to synchronize the regulations governing VER financing as a form of protection for victims. The purpose of this study is to determine the legal arrangements that regulate VER financing as a form of protection for victims, to analyze the constraints of VER financing as a form of protection for victims, to understand the synchronization of regulations governing VER financing as a form of protection for victims. The conclusion from the results of this study is that the legal arrangements governing the financing of Visum et Repertum as a form of protection for victims are not synchronized, the constraints in financing VeR are the overlapping regulations between KUHAP Article 136, RI Law No.36 of 2009 Article 125, Regulations Minister of Health No. 71 of 2013 Article 20 paragraph (4), Regulation of the Head of the State Police of the Republic of Indonesia of 2014 Article 15 and Presidential Decree N0.82 of 2018 Article 52 paragraph (1) letters r, s, t, u so that there is no clarity about who pays the post mortem , synchronizing the regulations that regulate VeR financing as a form of protection for victims needs to be realized in practice in the field. Lower legal regulations must follow higher legal regulations, so that there is compatibility between the law and the legal regulations under it.

Synchronization; Financing; Visum et Repertum; Victim