Part One:
Historical background to and causes of the Aceh conflict. There are sections on the sovereignty of the Sultanate of Aceh, asserting that since the Dutch never defeated Aceh the 1949 settlement between the Republic of Indonesia and Holland did not cover Aceh. There’s information on economic colonialism from Jakarta, and arguments for Acehnese sovereignty based on Indonesian constitutional law, international law and Islamic law. Hasan di Tiro’s leadership is defended and ABRI’s violence in the 1990’s described. The peace process is described and analysed in detail. All this takes up the first 33 pages.

Part Two:
The legal process of his arrest and detention is described. On May 10th 2003 Sofyan and his family were arrested without the correct arrest warrants and for 3 reasons which he answered. He was subsequently released. On May 16th he was again seized at the airport, released, and then on the same day arrested again along with his colleagues from the negotiation team – both times without any warrant whatsoever. While in detention on the 23rd of May he and the other negotiators received official SP-3 (dropping of charges) letters (his bore the umber:

No.Pol.SP.Tap.28/V/2003/Dit Reskrim and was dated 2 May 2003) stating that the investigation into charges of insurrection (Makar) against them was being dropped due to lack of evidence. But these charges were included in the indictment brought before the court in this trial and the trials of the other negotiators.

Part Three:
Sofyan states that, as outlined in his demurral of the initial charges, the indictment relates alleged crimes of GAM that are not proven to have been carried out by GAM. The indictment contains almost nothing new from the initial charges, no legal arguments, and both documents confuse evidence and the private opinion of the public prosecutor. The indictment contains two charges – firstly, insurrection (makar) and secondly, terrorism. On the charge of insurrection he has an official SP-3 letter from the police clearly stating that he has been cleared of this charge due to lack of evidence. Since the indictment produces no new evidence on top of that he was held on, the charge is false. On the charge of terrorism he states that no concrete evidence or witness testimony has been tabled that links him to conspiracy to commit, attempts to commit, or acts of assistance to, terrorism.

He states that he considers himself to have double citizenship, ie Acehnese and Indonesian citizenship. With regard to GAM membership, he states that his only formal relationship with the institution of GAM is as a negotiator in the period since the beginning of the Humanitarian Pause. GAM has its own processes of inducting members and these are not the same as those for becoming a GAM representative at the peace talks. He makes the analogy of an Indonesian citizen acting as Sri Lankan consul in Medan–he is in the same relationship to GAM as this citizen is to the Sri Lankan state. He says that GAM’s aims are the establishment of an Acehnese nation-state, while his own aims are the resolution of the Aceh conflict, with GAM’s solution being one of the possible means of resolution, integration in Indonesia another.

In response to the charge of supporting GAM extortion in the form of “Nanggroe taxes”, he says that in the negotiations context he had discussed the precedents in international law for acknowledging GAM’s authority over part of Aceh, including its taxation. As Chief Negotiator for GAM he had no authority to determine GAM’s policy on fund raising. He has in the past been involved in civil society discussions about the problem of GAM’s fund raising in the villages.

Concerning the material evidence–namely, a letter of appointment from GAM leader Malik Mahmud, a bundle of documents from the peace process, and a photo of Sofyan with GAM leaders – he states that none of these pieces of evidence have any relevance to the charges brought against him.

Part Four:
Sofyan addresses the court. He argues that there is no evidence of criminal acts on his part. He cites Article One of the Criminal Code, which states that 1) an act cannot be tried unless it violates existing laws, and 2) if a law is changed after an act has been carried out, the law to be applied in that case will be the one that most benefits the accused. His actions in becoming GAM negotiator at the Joint Security Committee (JSC) were legal because the Indonesian government had helped set up the JSC. He states that the evidence produced against him by the prosecutor has been inaccurate, totally irrelevant, and inconsistent. He was arrested by a decision of the Aceh provincial police chief, and reasons for his arrest were sought after the fact.

He then argues that the legal basis for the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement as signed by the Indonesian government and made law in Indonesia, still applies and has legal precedence over the declaration of Military Emergency.

Thank You