A/HRC/13/40/Add.1 115. The National Commission against Violence on Women has called for a judicial review of Law No. 11/2006 of the Government of Aceh concerning the sources the Aceh Legislative Council has used to adopt the Aceh Islamic Criminal Code. Moreover, this Code applies to both Muslims and non Muslims. It was furthermore alleged that, although the Code is applicable to the population as a whole, in practice women are far more likely to become victims of stoning due to patriarchal and discriminatory practices and policies, as well as biological differences. (b) Response from the Government dated 23 December 2009 116. In its response dated 23 December 2009, the Government indicated that the Province of Aceh is given a special status under law no. 18 of 2001, which incorporated a special system of autonomy. In the preamble of this law, special status is granted to Aceh for its distinct contribution to the formation of the Indonesian nation, as much as for Aceh’s unique historical and cultural background, as well as its religious, moral and social values which had been preserved from generation to generation. The special status of Aceh as an autonomous region was expressed through four specific areas over which it had sole decisional power: religious issues, customs, education and the role of the Ulema in the local policy-making process. This special status was further reinforced through law no. 11 of 2006 on the Governing of Aceh. 117. The Government explained that, in accordance with the above national laws, the promulgation of local laws and regulations was meant to endow the Muamalat (Islamic civil code) and the Jinayah (Islamic criminal code) within the applicable norms in Aceh. The task of promulgating local laws and regulations was carried out by the Aceh House of Representatives. The legislation produced by this body is known as the Qanun (Islamic bylaw). So far, the Qanun related to Jinayah issues generally deals with regulations related to gambling, drinking and adultery. Within this framework the Islamic Religious Courts in Aceh which previously had jurisdiction over issues of marriage and divorce had been transformed into Mahkamah Syariah (religious court at the local level) and had been granted additional jurisdiction over the issues of the Muamalat and certain aspects of the Jinayah. This was completed by the issuance of a Decree of the Supreme Court of 2004, which transferred some of the jurisdictional power of the civil courts of Aceh to the Mahkamah Syariah. 118. The Government indicated that one of the types of punishment that have been used so far was public flogging. However, it noted that there were also alternative punishments in the Qanun, namely imprisonment and fines. Thus, the judges had a number of options in carrying out justice. The Government argued that many people who had been sentenced to flogging were done so by their own choice as they considered it a form of religious penance. 119. On 14 September 2009, two weeks before leaving office, the outgoing legislature of Aceh passed five Qanun draft bills, including the Qanun Jinayah (Islamic Criminal Law) and the Qanun on Jinayah Procedural Law, which have sparked a fierce debate at national level, especially with regard to law enforcement on stoning for offenders. However, international reporting on this issue focussed mostly on the aspect of the legislation which provides for – or even requires – the “stoning to death” of adulterers and the torture of women. Consequently, the international image of Indonesia generally, and Aceh in particular, has suffered as a result of this reductive interpretation. The real issue, according to the Government, concerned the extent to which democratic principles were finding a home in Aceh and in Indonesia. 120. The adoption of the Qanun Jinayah had sparked controversy and public debate in the local media and at the national level. The substance of the Qanun has also provoked protests and concern from various groups in the country, including members of the House of Representatives, the National Human Rights Commission, academics, religious leaders and 32