Jakarta – Two of those accused of subversion from the Peoples Democratic Party (PRD) presented their objections at the South Jakarta State Court, Tuesday 17 February. In essence, they questioned the relevance of continuing the trial in the midst of the lack of legal clarity and the "authorities" which has coloured the course of the trials.

In a his demurrer of 17 pages, Wilson stated that the accused in the PRD case have already been "judged" [lit: politically convicted - JB] by Soesilo Soedarman since July 29, 1996, who publicly announced that the PRD were the instigators of the July 27 riots in Jakarta.

Wilson also said that the press have also taken an active part in judging them, with "slander which was read daily without press ethics and morals, with a pre-judgement of guilt".

What is being struggled for by the PRD, added Wilson, is only an expression of the "contents of the peoples hearts". "We are a generation which was born during the golden bridge of the New Order regime, we know the abundance of wealth at the top of the golden bridg, but why is there nothing that pours forth to the space underneath? Although jail is what we will accept as the reward for what we have done so far, the trial has only added to the 'broken hearts of the people' who are already weighted down and do no know the way out. We did it all with conscious understanding so that it would be buried until it became a social sickness", said Wilson.

Violations of the penal code

In a separate court, the defense lawyer of the accused I Gusti Agung Anom Astika, Abdul Hakim Garuda Nusantara Cs, in his objections stated that violations of the criminal code had occurred in the in the preliminary investigations. The arrest warrants which had been provided only a day before the accused were arrested, violated paragraph 56 of the Indonesia Criminal Code (KUHAP). He also questioned the substance of accusations. The actions of the accused to organise discussion, help workers [lit: accompany - JB], establish organisations, arrange the concept of speeches and build an alternative press, for example, cannot be categorised as a criminal act. "Is a criminal act if a person states their opinion along with their thoughts, which are in fact guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution and [the state ideology] of Pancasila along with the 1948 declaration of Human rights"?

Meanwhile, Tohab Simanungkalit who appeared as a witness in the subversion case of Mochtar Pakpahan was questioned for four hours in the trial presided over by Judge Djazuli.

Simanungkalit explained, had had never heard Pakpahan say that had didn't want Suharto to be nominated as president in 1998 or that he demanded that Suharto be tried. Similarly with regard to the dual function of the Armed Forces, according to Simanungkalit he had never hear Pakpahan state his disagreement with this.

Judge sick

The trial which began at 10am ended at 2.30pm when one of the Judges said they were sick. simanungkalit was asked to reappear at the following session. Before this, Mochtar Pakpahan's request that he be given permission to be examined by a medical specialist in relation to health problems were rejected by Judge Djazuli, on the grounds that the court was not an institution to speak of health facilities. "By task is only to investigate the case" he said.

[Translation from Kompas - JB]