E/CN.4/2000/4/Add.2 page 15 57. These individuals - Raharjo Waluyo Djati, Faisol Reza, Nezar Patria and Aan Rusdianto - informed the Group that throughout their detention, they were not told the legal basis for their arrest, were denied access to a lawyer and to relatives, and were not brought before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power. They were released without charge, trial or judgment and returned to their families. A group of approximately one dozen other political activists apprehended in similar circumstances have “disappeared”. The Group considers that on the basis of the information before it, there was no legal basis that would have justified the detention of the above-mentioned individuals. This is corroborated by the fact that, subsequently, 11 members of KOPASSUS were charged and are facing trial for their role in the abduction of these and, apparently, the disappeared, individuals, a measure which the Group welcomes. 58. In Baucau, East Timor, the delegation visited the Armed Forces local intelligence headquarters known as the “Red House” (“Rumah Merah”, see para. 48 above). The officer in charge of the facility did not hide the fact that while “Rumah Merah” was now only used as an intelligence facility, it had been used until mid-1998 as a detention centre for East Timorese rebels. According to the officer, rebels apprehended by the military would be “guided and investigated”. If crimes were involved, they would be handed over to the police, accompanied by a report; those detainees would subsequently be charged. If not, they would be kept at “Rumah Merah” for periods of between one and three months for purposes of “rehabilitation”, in the circumstances described in paragraph 44 above. The Deputy Regional Commander for the Uduayama Regional Military Command and the Regional Military Commander for East Timor confirmed that the facilities at Rumah Merah had been used for the purposes of “rehabilitation” of individuals suspected of supporting the Timorese guerrilla. The delegation was shown the interrogation and discharge forms concerning a Timorese man who had been apprehended and investigated on suspicion of links with a local rebel group. Neither form mentions any legal provisions under which he might have been justifiably arrested and charged. He was discharged and returned to his family after having been detained for more than 80 days. It follows from these observations that, firstly, this method is geared more towards incitement to denunciation than to rehabilitation and that, secondly, the detention of these individuals who have never been charged under the Indonesian Criminal Code nor tried, is manifestly devoid of any legal basis. 59. The Working Group therefore considers that such detention for “rehabilitation purposes” must be deemed to constitute arbitrary detention within the meaning of Category I of its methods of work. Category II 60. Included in this category are cases of deprivation of liberty resulting from prosecution or conviction for activities which amount to the peaceful exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and other fundamental rights protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 5 61. At Cipinang and Tanggeran prisons in Jakarta, the Group interviewed eight detained members of the People’s Democratic Party (PRD) and the Center