E/CN.4/1992/17/Àdd.1 page 8 29. Before considering whether KUHAP is in conformity with generally accepted international standards, it must be pointed out that KUHAP, (art. 284, para. 2) allows a (temporary) exception to criminal procedure to be made in a number of laws, the most important of which is the Law on the Combat against Subversive Activities, usually called the Anti-Subversion Law. This law, which originally was a presidential decree of 1963, was transformed in 1969 by parliamentary approval into a statute (Law No. 5/1969). 30. The definition of subversive activities in chapter 1 of the Law is very broad and loose. Moreover, it is not necessary that the acts concerned actually have the effect of endangering the security of the State; it is sufficient that they might have that effect. For this reason the Anti-Subversion Law has been severely criticized in Indonesia as well as abroad. 31. As far as procedure is concerned, the most drastic exception to the provisions of KUHAP is the provision that the Attorney-General (the chief of the national prosecution service) has the authority to order the detention of a suspect for a maximum of one year (art. 7 ) . In this case no pre-trial proceedings can be started nor can such detention be subjected to any other form of judicial control. The Special Rapporteur was informed that the decision to charge a person with having committed crimes mentioned in the Anti-Subversion Law or with crimes under the Penal Code (which also contains crimes against the security of the State and against public order) must be made by the Attorney-General and not by the local public prosecutor. He was also informed that as long as this decision has not been made, the provisions of KUHAP are applicable. 32. It is a matter of controversy in Indonesia whether the Anti-Subversion Law should be maintained once the new Penal Code is enacted. Not only is its constitutional legality disputed, but the broad powers given to the authorities and the loose and vague definition of subversive activities have given rise to much criticism. It has been submitted that crimes against the security of the State and against public order should be punishable only under the normal Penal Code. No judicial body so far has declared the Anti-Subversion Law to be invalid while a considerable number of people have been convicted under it. In the last few months a number of people from Aceh province, where there has been serious civil unrest, have been sentenced for having carried out subversive activities. 33. What is striking about Indonesian criminal procedure is the rigid distinction between its various phases and between the various authorities involved, as well as the passive role assigned to the public prosecutor and the judiciary. Criminal investigation is exclusively a matter for the police. During the first 20 days of detention no other authority is involved unless pre-trial proceedings are started by the suspect or his relatives. Although in general KUHAP must be deemed to be in conformity with the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment (adopted by consensus by the General Assembly in its resolution 43/173 of 9 December 1988), this absence of judicial control during the initial period of arrest seems to be at odds with principle 37 which reads: