<<previous  |  index  |  next>>

V. Violations of Due Process, Unfair Trials

I am sure not one of them [trials in Aceh] met international or even Indonesian standards.  I have been told consistently that most people were convicted on a limited number of witnesses, mostly police or military witnesses, who sometimes did not even present in court.⁴⁵
Foreign embassy official, Jakarta

On July 21, 2003 Syamsul Syahputra became the first reported alleged member of GAM to go on trial in Aceh since the start of martial law in May 2003.  Syahputra was charged with treason, in the first of a series of trials apparently aimed at establishing that GAM members were trying to break up the Republic of Indonesia.  At the opening of his trial the state prosecutor, Moch Adnan, stated that Syahputra, allegedly a district secretary of GAM, “was trying to create revolt against the legal government with an aim to set up an independent state, separated from the Republic of Indonesia.”⁴⁶  Since his trial hundreds of others have taken place, largely unreported, and without independent monitors. 

According to the Indonesian military, over 2,000 Acehnese have been arrested by Indonesian security forces in Aceh since the start of martial law in May 2003.  Hundreds have been charged, tried, and convicted for makar (treason or rebellion) under Indonesia’s criminal code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana, or KUHP) and are now in prisons across Aceh and Central Java.  Under Indonesia’s criminal code a conviction for makar can result in life imprisonment.  The charges have generally been based on allegations of membership in, associating with, or assisting GAM, mostly for providing financial or other material support for GAM.

Human Rights Watch believes that many of those convicted under martial law have been convicted primarily on the basis of confessions extracted under torture or other ill-treatment and after trials that did not meet international fair trial standards.  Prisoners interviewed by Human Rights Watch in Java spoke at length about arbitrary arrests, lack of access to legal counsel, the failure of the prosecution to produce evidence or witnesses at trial, inability to contact defense witnesses, and, in many cases, restrictions on the ability of defendants to speak at their own trial or to their own defense counsel.

On March 26, 2004, the widely respected Indonesian legal aid and human rights association, Perhimpunan Bantuan Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia Indonesia (PBHI), held a press conference in Jakarta to announce that they had found 43 cases of legal violations by law enforcement officials in Banda Aceh, Aceh Besar, and Lhokseumawe between May 2003 and February 2004.  In a statement at the conference, Hendardi, then PBHI chairman, said, “We found a great many [cases of] arrests which were not carried out by police officers, which were made without written arrest warrants and then during interrogation [the detainees] were invariably tortured.”⁴⁷

Charges of Treason and Rebellion

Persons arrested for their participation in, or support for the GAM in Aceh, are typically charged with the crime of makar (treason or rebellion).  The government seems to favor this catch-all offense, which uses extremely broad language and is punishable by up to life imprisonment, rather than to prosecute persons for specific offenses, such as weapons possession, kidnapping, or murder.  Membership in GAM itself is not a violation of the law in Indonesia, as GAM is not an illegal organization.⁴⁸

The crime of makar is listed in the KUHP under articles in a section entitled “Crimes Against the Security of the State” (Kejahatan Terhadap Keamanan Negara).  Articles 106-108 of the KUHP state that:

Article 106

The attempt undertaken with intent to bring the territory of the state wholly or partially under foreign domination or to separate part thereof, shall be punished by life imprisonment or a maximum imprisonment of twenty years.

Article 107

1) The attempt undertaken with the intent to cause a revolution shall be punished by a maximum imprisonment of fifteen years;

2) Leaders and originators of an attempt referred to in the first paragraph shall be punished by life imprisonment or a maximum imprisonment of twenty years.

Article 108

1) Guilty of rebellion and punished by a maximum imprisonment of fifteen years shall be:

First, the person who takes up arms against the government;

Second, the person who, with the intent to rebel against the government, rises with or joins a band which take up arms against the government,

2) Leaders and originators of a rebellion shall be punished by life imprisonment or a maximum imprisonment of twenty years.⁴⁹

The majority of new prisoners in Aceh have been charged and convicted of makar (treason or rebellion) under these articles.  The charges filed against 140 of the 143 prisoners transferred from Aceh to Java in January 2004 included makar; the charges against 126 consisted solely of offenses under articles 106-108.⁵⁰

While Human Rights Watch was unable to access documentation regarding Acehnese prisoners other than this group of 143, in Java, Indonesian lawyers and human rights organizations monitoring the trials in Aceh told Human Rights Watch that most cases related to GAM involve charges of makar. 

Under the KUHP, there is no specified evidentiary requirement for makar.  General rules of evidence under Indonesia’s Code of Criminal Procedure (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana, or KUHAP) apply, whereby the judge has to have at least “two legal evidence materials” to prove a conviction.⁵¹  In addition, a person supporting GAM’s objective to create a separate state should be considered guilty of makar only if the intention of the individual is made clear by an act specified under article 53 of the KUHP.⁵² 

These provisions are vague and have historically been used to target non-violent political activists across Indonesia.  In the context of the armed conflict in Aceh, the open-ended language of the law has permitted convictions without a real demonstration of wrongdoing. Mere association with GAM or allegations of providing material support to GAM members––as opposed to the organization as whole––has resulted in convictions in Aceh. 

Makar is often construed by the Indonesian security services and legal system to be the crime of attempting to overthrow the government of Indonesia through support for GAM, without either the “two legal evidence materials” or the requisite act required by article 53 of the KUHP. 

In 1999 the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention visited Indonesia. In its report following the visit they drew particular attention to some articles in KUHP and called for them to be amended.  One group of articles raised were the provisions related to crimes against the security of the state (Articles 104-129).  The Working Group stated that:

Most of these provisions are, especially inasmuch as the intentional element of the crime is concerned, drafted in such general and vague terms that they can be used arbitrarily to restrict the freedoms of opinion, expression, assembly and association.  They can be used notably to target the press, peaceful political opposition activities and trade unions, as they were frequently under the former regimes.⁵³

The definition of an act in support of GAM that constitutes makar is extremely elastic and susceptible to abuse by security officials and prosecutors attempting to prove a crime.  Although GAM combatants who have either been captured or have surrendered are among the detainees and prisoners in Aceh and Java, the detainee population also includes civilians who have been accused of supporting or sympathizing with GAM.  The definition of support or sympathy is so broad that it includes families of GAM members, as well as individuals who are opposed to Indonesian government policy in Aceh, including human rights defenders, non-violent political activists, and students. One defense lawyer from Aceh told Human Rights Watch:

Generally speaking until now no commanders for GAM have been arrested or detained.  The majority are low-level or those forced to be GAM, forced trainings, etc.  Many, for example, “couriers,” or people who have given rice or cigarettes to GAM.  It does not mean they are GAM but they are accused of helping GAM.⁵⁴

Arbitrary Arrests

Presidential Decree No. 23/2003, which took effect on May 19, 2003, authorized a state of emergency and martial law for Aceh Province.  The province thereby became subject to the provisions of martial law in Law No. 23/1959 on states of emergency, which covers both states of military and civil emergencies.  This law states that the military has the authority to arrest and detain suspects for 20 days, extendable by 50 days.  The detention must be reported to the martial law authority within 14 days of the arrest. 

Even during a state of emergency, all arrests must be made with an arrest warrant, unless the suspect is caught in flagrante delicto (“in the act”). ⁵⁵  Article 18 of the KUHAP states that:

The task of making an arrest shall be executed by state police officers of the Republic of Indonesia by showing their assignment letters and handing over to the suspect the arrest warrant which contains the suspect’s identity and mentions the reasons for his arrest, and explains in brief the criminal case of which he is suspect and his place of examination.  If a person is caught in-the-act the arrest shall be made without a warrant, with the stipulation that the arresting officer must immediately hand over the arrested [person] and available evidence materials to the nearest investigator or assistant investigator.  A copy of the arrest warrant as intended in section (1) shall be delivered to the family of the arrested [person] immediately after the arrest…”⁵⁶

International human rights law considers an arrest to be arbitrary if it violates existing legal procedures or includes elements of inappropriateness, injustice or lack of predictability.  The purpose of an arrest warrant is to provide a judicial check on the powers of the police to ensure there is sufficient evidence to take a person into custody and to avoid arbitrary arrests.  This process has failed in Aceh. 

Prisoners interviewed by Human Rights Watch provided differing accounts of the circumstances of their arrest and pre-trial detention, indicating a lack of standardization in the legal process.  Although most ended up in police detention immediately before trial, many were also held at military posts or barracks before being transferred to police or prison detention facilities.  Much depended on which branch of the security forces arrested them.  Some were held in military custody for several days or even weeks before being transferred to police custody. 

However, they had one thing in common: none of the 35 prisoners Human Rights Watch interviewed said that they were ever shown an arrest warrant or informed in writing at the time of their arrest of the charges against them.  One Indonesian lawyer who has monitored trials in Aceh in the last year told Human Rights Watch:

From our own monitoring, 60% of the arrests are not valid because [the suspects] were not arrested with an arrest warrant.  They were like kidnappings.”⁵⁷

Human Rights Watch interviewed one man who said that no arrest warrant was produced at the time of his arrest.  He described what happened:

An arrest warrant?  No, there was none.  At the time it was about 9 o’clock and they [the soldiers] arrived at my house.  Then they knocked on my door, my nephew opened the door of the house and he was ordered to raise his hands, then all of my family raised their hands because they [the soldiers] had guns.  Then I was ordered to join them to the Kodim [District Military Command].  So I went with them to the Kodim, when I got to the Kodim I was detained for four days and four nights, and during that detention I was beat up, hit until I was black and blue.  After they hit me then they questioned me.

Another man described how he was arrested on June 10, 2003 without an arrest warrant:

At the time I was resting together with my family, then came the sound of a car stopping in front of my house and then at that moment some Kopassus soldiers straight away pushed the door of my house and destroyed inside my house until everything was in a mess, they took out clothes that were in the wardrobe saying “there are guns in here,” but there were not any and at that time my family were frightened.  Then they [Kopassus] tied my hands behind me and I was straight away taken by them to the Kopassus post.⁵⁸

Another man recounted his arrest without a warrant:

At the time I was arrested I was outside the town of Kuala Simpang.  I was in a car when there was a “sweeping” by security forces and I was ordered to get out of the car and show my ID card.  Straight away I was arrested, together with my friend, who is also here [in this prison].  Then I was taken by a group of marines and police…to Polsek Sungai Yu Aceh Tamiang.  I was detained there for one night and the next day I was taken to Polsek Langsa, East Aceh and there I was detained for 40 days.  Then I was transferred to the prison…At the time they were examining my ID card and told me I was to be taken away, I asked “Sir, why do we have to go with you?” and he said “it will explained later in the office,” and they snapped at us and said not to ask lots of questions.  As soon as we got to the office we were straight away accused of being GAM.  If you are in Aceh, there is no other accusation, if you are arrested then you are GAM, and I asked again “Sir, what is the reason you suspect me of being GAM, is there any evidence?”  Again he said we were suspected of being GAM.  Then I said again “I am not GAM, I am just an ordinary citizen.”  Finally I was taken, and then without any resistance.⁵⁹

Another Acehnese man told Human Rights Watch what happened when he was arrested:

At the time [June 15, 2003] I was in my house and I was arrested about 6 o’clock in the morning.  After I was arrested I was put in a gunny sack [goni], my hands were tied, and my eyes were covered.  Then they took me to I don’t know where, I didn’t even know.  And at that time I had been in the house by myself.  After I was taken with them, at about 4 o’clock in the afternoon my eyes, feet, and hands were freed, then I saw that I was already at the Lhokseumawe police station.⁶⁰ 

Under the current civil emergency the military retains the authority to arrest and detain suspects.  However, since the downgrading of the province from a military to a civil emergency, arguments over applicable law and authority in Aceh have broken out between the military and the police.  The result has been that security officials have frequently failed to follow Indonesian law, erroneously combining martial law and normal criminal code procedures for arrests and detentions.⁶¹

A defense lawyer from Aceh explained to Human Rights Watch:

At the moment [April 2004] they [the security forces] are using the military emergency regulations.  One example: There is a TNI post in two villages.  There a person is suspected of being GAM. He can be straight away taken into detention at a military post for up to 20 days then he is taken to military police for up to 50 days before he is taken to the police.  At that point the [applicable] law changes to KUHAP. But that’s already 70 days in detention.  That’s enough to brainwash [cuci otak].  During those 70 days there is a possibility that if no evidence appears then they will be disappeared.  We have twenty cases of people who have been disappeared until now.⁶²

Access to Counsel, Right to Prepare a Defense

Persons arrested in Aceh on allegations of participating in anti-government activities or supporting GAM are frequently tried and convicted without adequate representation by legal counsel.  Some persons have no lawyer whatsoever. Others receive court appointed lawyers who make no effort to challenge the prosecution’s case or merely serve as go-betweens for the payment of bribes.  The result is that at trial defendants often are left on their own, with no witnesses or other evidence presented on their behalf.

International human rights law guarantees that all persons detained shall have the right of access to their legal counsel.⁶³ Persons arrested must have immediate access to counsel, which may be delayed only because of exceptional circumstances as set out by law.⁶⁴  The right to counsel includes the right to effective, qualified counsel who will represent the defendant’s interests and fully advocate on their behalf.⁶⁵

The KUHAP, the Indonesian code of criminal procedure, provides detailed provisions requiring notification of arrest, the filing of charges, and provision of a summons to the defendant before court hearings.  These provisions are systematically ignored.  As recounted below, many prisoners told Human Rights Watch that they heard the charges against them for the first time when they appeared in court or that they never received a notice or summons.  This denies them the necessary time and opportunity to prepare a defense.

The KUHAP ensures the right of free legal counsel to criminal suspects who are indigent and face a sentence of five or more years of imprisonment, or any suspect who faces a sentence of 15 years or more.⁶⁶  The legal assistance is required not just at the trial but for “every level of examination.”⁶⁷ 

The Acehnese charged with makar are entitled to free legal counsel, indigent or not, because the crime carries a sentence of up to life imprisonment.  Yet all the prisoners interviewed by Human Rights Watch said that they had no access to legal counsel during most of their pre-trial military or police detention.  International experience has shown that the lack of involvement of legal counsel during the period of pretrial detention has been shown to contribute to an atmosphere in which torture and other mistreatment flourish.  In Aceh those that received counsel for their trial did not have adequate time to prepare a defense, and in practice many of the lawyers showed no inclination to mount a legal case on behalf of their clients.

An Indonesian NGO that monitored the trials in Aceh found that court documents were sometimes manipulated to give the appearance that there was a defense lawyer at the trial when none was present.  Said a worker for the organization: “There are many cases without a defense lawyer but the documentation has a falsified signature.”⁶⁸

In some cases defendants were appointed legal defense by the court.  The legal assistance they were given was described as pro forma rather than a genuine defense.  A man who was tried in Lhokseumawe told Human Rights Watch about the defense lawyer at his trial:

At that time there was a defense lawyer who was appointed by the judge.  But actually there was no defense at all.  He was just silent.  He said this was so that the punishment would be a little bit lighter [ringan].⁶⁹ 

In some cases detainees were restricted from speaking to their appointed counsel during the trial.  Another man explained:

Actually we were given a defense lawyer, but also we were not allowed to use the defense lawyer.  They said we could not use a defense lawyer.

When asked who instructed him that he was not allowed to use the defense lawyer, he said:

The prosecutor said so, he said we could not use a defense lawyer, and the prosecutor also did not give a reason why we could not use a defense lawyer.  And during the trial we were not allowed to speak and we were restrained.  At the time we really wanted to defend ourselves, but what could be done?⁷⁰

Another man told Human Rights Watch:

There was a defense lawyer, but from the police…I could not say very much.  What is certain is that I only could be quiet because everything had already been arranged/settled [diatur] by them.  And I also could not speak with the defense lawyer because there were restrictions which had been fixed by them.⁷¹

In July 2003 the problem of inadequate defense counsel for GAM detainees in Aceh was raised by an Indonesian lawyers’ organization with the Indonesian government, including during a meeting with Vice President Hamzah Haz and Minister for Justice and Human Rights Yusril Mahendra.  Indra Sahnun Lubis, chairman of the Association of Indonesian Lawyers (IPHI), stated: “We are concerned with the government's failure to provide defense lawyers for the separatists since most of them have been convicted or are facing conviction for crimes that carry a prison term of more than five years.” 

Lubis also told the press that while IPHI was able to provide some minimal defense support for trials in Aceh, Vice President Haz had promised to pay attention to the issue so that defense counsel could be provided to GAM detainees on trial in Aceh.  In response, Justice Minister Yusril Mahendra conceded that the lack of legal defense in Aceh was a problem and admitted that his office had not allocated sufficient funding to provide legal counsel for all of the trials in Aceh.  He recommended that “the funds should come from the joint operation budget, as it is impossible for my office to provide the money.”⁷²

Despite these public acknowledgements by senior government officials of problems with access to counsel, over a year later little concrete action has been taken to address this vital problem.

Unfair Trials

The trials of Acehnese charged with treason and other political offenses do not meet international fair trial standards.  In addition to defendants’ lack of legal counsel and the opportunity to prepare a defense, trials typically deny the defendant the right to question witnesses for the accused and to call and examine defense witnesses.  Persons may be convicted with little or no evidence presented, bringing into serious question the competence, impartiality, and independence of the courts.⁷³ 

The full extent of unfair trials in Aceh is unknown in large measure because of the difficulty local human rights monitoring organizations face in Aceh.  For the most part treason trials are held in rural areas away from the relative safety of the larger towns.  Security threats against human rights defenders from both the Indonesian security forces and GAM make it extremely difficult for defense counsel to do their jobs effectively.  One Jakarta organization involved in trying to gather information on the Aceh trials told Human Rights Watch about the enormity of the task:

We don’t yet have any information about specific cases.  We are still waiting on data from colleagues in Aceh…To be specific about the Aceh cases it is not possible to carry out monitoring like that.  The issue is the threat from the government against human rights defenders.  What is definite is that for our efforts in Banda Aceh there are only three people from LBH Aceh, one from PBHI in the Aceh Besar area.  But to go out to the districts, we cannot––and the majority of these cases happen in the districts.  So, automatically we don’t have any information.⁷⁴

In explaining the process leading up to his trial, and the trial itself, one man captured many of the serious problems in the trials of those accused of makar for GAM-related activities:

I didn’t have a defense lawyer, and none was given to me.  They said I was indicted for treason so why did I need a defense lawyer?  At the time I also asked if there was anyone who would defend me, but none was given by the judge.⁷⁵

According to the man, the trial itself was conducted without any witnesses or evidence presented:

The people who made the BAP [the police investigation report] for the trial was a group from the Kodim itself.  After I was processed in the Kodim I was straight away sent to Lhokseumawe [detention centre].  Fifty days after that I was handed over to the Polres.  After Lhokseumawe Polres then I was tried. I was tried in a court, two trial sessions.  At the first one the KUHP [criminal code charges] were read.  At the second session I was sentenced.  It was TNI who arrested me, and the witness was submitted from a TNI group but the person did not arrive.  The judge did not tell me why the witness did not arrive and there was no evidence.  The prosecutor demanded four years in prison for me. After it was decided in the session, I was hit with three years in prison.  I was indicted under article 108 with the accusation I am a GAM adjutant.  Truthfully this is not true.  But I was ordered to admit because it was fitting with the confession that had been put in the BAP.⁷⁶

Another man explained that after he was arrested he was taken to the police station.  While at the police station he was only asked his name and employment, information he gave freely.  He was therefore surprised by developments at his trial. He recounted what happened:

During the trial it was really different from what had been asked at the Polres, and the BAP which the prosecutor read was extremely different.  At the Polres no one said I was guilty of anything.  In my statement, I only said that I had taken in two of my friends to sleep in my house.  But during the trial the judge read in the BAP that I was accommodating GAM, and at that time I didn’t know that my friends were alleged to have been involved with GAM.  I didn’t know that, but I was charged with treason anyway.

In many cases the only evidence offered by the prosecution was a suggestion of an association with GAM.  One defense counsel from Aceh told Human Rights Watch:

For the trial process the majority of cases were tried without the presence of witnesses.  Or, there were witnesses but from the police who are fighting there and they only confirmed to the judge that he [the defendant] is GAM.⁷⁷

In some cases no proof at all was presented.  One 34-year-old prisoner told Human Rights Watch:

At the time of the trial I didn’t call any of my own witnesses but the judge himself pointed out a witness.  Then the witness said that neither of us were involved in anything.  If this trial was valid, I did not have a problem, I defended my own rights and I did not have a defense lawyer and I did not have any of my own witnesses, everything was regulated by them.  I was not scared because I had not done anything wrong and I kept saying that I was not GAM, and that witness said I was not involved in anything.⁷⁸

The man was nevertheless convicted.

A 22-year-old man described his trial:

At the time I had three witnesses and the head of the village was also a witness for me and he said that I was not involved with GAM, then the other witnesses also said that I was not involved with GAM.  I didn’t have a defense lawyer.  At the time the village head was a witness for me and he knows that I am not GAM and I stated I was not GAM.  But what can you say, the punishment had already been decided.⁷⁹

A 29-year-old man told Human Rights Watch:

I was in court two times and the judge straight away made his decision…there was no evidence, and no witnesses.  I was the only one on trial.  During the first court appearance I did not have a lawyer, but at the second session there was a lawyer.  The judge sentenced me to six years in prison.  Because I had a lawyer it was decreased to five years…I am scared to appeal because my sentence may be lengthened.  It is better to just accept the judge’s decision.⁸⁰

A 45-year-old man told Human Rights Watch:

It is because we don’t know about politics, and there was no pity and I was accused with articles 106-108, a treason case.  And I did not appeal. On September 2, 2003, in my trial there was one prosecutor, two judges, and me, and my wife sat behind me…I had three witnesses and I asked if my witnesses could be present.  They said that it was not allowed to arrange for them, if I didn’t want my punishment to be harsher.

I asked why it was this way, why the trial was closed like this, didn’t I also have a right to ask for the presence of my witnesses.  It is impossible for a trial to be like this, and the trial was unclear.  They said I was hardheaded.  On the 2^nd, after I spoke for a little bit, the judge straight away banged the gavel.  I was straight away sentenced to 5 years in prison.  After that the trial was closed^.

One 28-year-old man from Bireuen told Human Rights Watch that he was arrested by Brimob and police officers while he was walking on the road.  They checked his KTP [I.D] and arrested him immediately in connection with a school burning near his house, where he worked as a cleaner.  He told Human Rights Watch that he did not burn the school and instead was one of the men who had helped put the fire out.  During the four sessions of his trial he was too afraid to present his case to the judge.  He had no defense lawyer.  He said that only himself, the prosecutor, and the judge were present during the trial.  He explained:

How could I have explained it [my case], in that trial everything had already been settled and I could not say anything because I was scared that my punishment would increase.  And they said that they already had all the data, and at that time I also asked for that data but they didn’t give it to me…I was sentenced to eleven years in prison by the judge.⁸¹

Several prisoners alleged that in addition to abuse they suffered while in detention, military and police officials warned them to refrain from speaking in their own defense or pursuing other judicial options at the close of their trial.

One man told Human Rights Watch:

I did not have my own lawyer except the lawyer paid for by the government.  I had already been threatened by soldiers [not to contest the charges], so I didn’t do anything. I just accepted whatever the judge decided.⁸²

Another man explained:

At trial I contested the charges and lots of TNI/Polri arrived.  I was threatened that I would be killed.  And I maintained I was not GAM, because I am only an ordinary fisherman… [The judge] just listened, and then I was returned to the cell.  I was sentenced to five years in jail under articles 106-108 for treason, after three trial sessions. I had a defense lawyer, from the government, but he put up almost no defense. In truth I [initially believed I would] be released by the judge but then a group of BKO troops [Bawah Kendali Operasi, the designation of auxiliary forces from outside Aceh nominally placed under local command] arrived at the prison and threatened me, saying: “If you are free you will be shot.” These three men from BKO Kopassus threatened me in the prison and deliberately sent TNI/Polri to the trial to take revenge. So finally I chose not to appeal, just to accept the judge’s decision.⁸³ 

There is a widely held belief among convicted persons imprisoned in Java that the conduct of their trials in Aceh was politically motivated and the judges lacked the independence to rule fairly. When questioned about why he had not defended himself more aggressively during his trial, one man told Human Rights Watch:

How can we dispute, when the judge himself is threatened [terancam]…If it is a GAM case it’s for sure that the punishment given to us will not be light. If we had given a single pack of cigarettes to GAM then the punishment will be heavier. It is already clear it is not just and it does not make sense. Everything has already been engineered by the authorities [para penguasa] in Aceh.⁸⁴ 

The perception that the outcome of trials had been determined in advance by the martial law administrator was widely held among the prisoners interviewed by Human Rights Watch.  The resignation and acceptance of harsh sentences and the widespread reluctance to appeal reflects this. One eighteen-year-old explained why he did not appeal his three-and-a-half-year sentence:

It is no use for me to appeal because if I appeal then my punishment will increase and the punishment has already been decided by the martial law administrator.⁸⁵

Another man told Human Rights Watch:

I didn’t have a defense lawyer. A defense lawyer for what? I did not do anything wrong and I could do it [defend] myself. What would you use a defense lawyer for when the sentence had already been determined by the authorities [penguasa]? For sure there was an offer from the judge [to appoint counsel] but I didn’t want one.⁸⁶ 

One Indonesian defense lawyer from Aceh told Human Rights Watch that the judges could play a more effective role in stemming abuses, but choose not to:

First, the judges or the prosecutors who are assigned to Aceh are non-permanent. I mean that they originate from outside of Aceh. So their psychology is that they don’t want to stay in Aceh for a long time. They want to do things quickly so that they are not too long in Aceh. Second, the quality of the indictments is weak, they are not strong… One of the judges told me, if they give out a light sentence for treason they receive a reprimand/warning [teguran] from the military. It’s not a threat but it is enough for the judge to think twice if he wants to give out a light punishment.⁸⁷

Judges and prosecutors have been brought into Aceh specifically for GAM-related trials.  They are largely from other areas of Sumatra or Java. One Indonesian human rights defender from Aceh, who is monitoring the trials, told Human Rights Watch:

It is part of the integrated operations––the law enforcement operation [operasi penegekan hukum]––because actually there were only a few judges and prosecutors in Aceh before [the mass arrests started]. Also the salaries of judges and prosecutors brought in from the outside are higher, because of their assignment. It was the decision of the Minister for Justice and Human Rights. Normally they are assigned to Aceh for six months.⁸⁸

Persons convicted of treason or other political offenses in Aceh have difficulty appealing verdicts arising from unfair trials.  Indonesian law permits courts to raise as well as lower sentences on appeal.  Prisoners and defense lawyers told Human Rights Watch that this provision, combined with the lack of impartiality and independence of the courts handling treason cases in Aceh, strongly deterred appeals.  Persons who did appeal were believed likely to have their sentences increased rather than reduced. 

One man who was sentenced to eight years in prison on charges of treason told Human Rights Watch why he wasn’t appealing the verdict:

My defense lawyer told me to just accept my sentence whatever it was because if I appealed my punishment likely would just get heavier. [The prosecutor told my defense lawyer that] he was also sorry for me but [he had to do it] because of his duty, and threats on him. So I should accept the decision whatever it is. And I don’t know about the law, and I didn’t go to school.⁸⁹

Corruption

The Indonesian criminal justice system is notorious for widespread corruption, permitting those with money and influence to escape justice while depriving many defendants of the right to a fair trial.  In Aceh, where the government has prosecuted hundreds of people in the last year for alleged treason or rebellion against the state, corruption still thrives in detention facilities and in the courts of law.  Human Rights Watch uncovered evidence of corruption among police and judicial officers in Aceh. Defendants were exposed to requests for bribes from police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and judges. Several prisoners interviewed by Human Rights Watch said that many detainees in Aceh were able to buy their way out of convictions or pay to decrease their sentences.  Others told Human Rights Watch that the only reason they were in prison was because they did not have enough money to buy their freedom.

One man explained how his sentence reduction was arranged after his conviction:

I was sentenced to four years in prison. I asked for a lighter sentence of three years in prison but I had to pay a Rp2, 500,000 (US$270) bribe. Just to decrease to three years the money had to be paid to the prosecutor and the judge, just so the punishment could be decreased. Then I asked what if I paid until my money ran out, but the prosecutor said I couldn’t do that.⁹⁰

Another man told Human Rights Watch that while in police detention at the Lhokseukon Polsek:

I was treated with deceit, and I was ordered to confess something which I didn’t do…if I didn’t confess it in a report I would be hit, even though I was hit I refused to confess. I only admitted that I gave Rp240,000 to GAM, and that was it. And the prosecutor asked for Rp10 million from me. But really I didn’t have any money and at the time I was at the Polsek for 50 days and 50 nights.⁹¹

One man was severely beaten while in both military and police custody. He told Human Rights Watch:

For one week I was tortured at the torture post and then I was transferred to the Polres. After I arrived at the Polres I was also beaten and I was ordered to confess, and then I gave some money [to the police] so that the prosecution dossier [berkas perkara] would be sent to the court quicker, so that I would not be beaten any more.⁹²

At the end of his trial this 23-year-old man was sentenced to fifteen years in prison by the judge for treason. The sentence was later commuted to eleven years in prison. The conviction was largely based on a confession the man made while in military custody after being severely tortured and beaten. When asked if he would appeal the sentence, then man said:

I was sentenced to fifteen years in prison by the judge, and I did not accept it and at the time I also submitted a legal defense, and finally the judge sentenced me to eleven years in prison. I will not appeal, because I really don’t have any money, and in fact if I appeal then my punishment will increase.⁹³