The executions of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran have been a major test for the Australian Federal Police. It was their tip-off to the Indonesian police that led to the arrests in 2005.

While a storm of debate has raged around their role, the AFP have remained tight-lipped. Today they fronted the media in an attempt to explain their actions.

The following is an edited transcript of some of the questions directed at commissioner Andrew Colvin and deputy commissioners Michael Phelan and Leanne Close.

Q) Would you have changed anything about the way that the AFP conducted the operations, and you mentioned at that the families were in your thoughts. Do you think the AFP owes them an apology?

A) No, I don't believe we owe them an apology. It's a very difficult question. I mean, we can't apologise for the role that we have to try to stop illicit drugs from coming into this community. We've said many times that illicit drugs are destroying families and our communities. In answer to your first question, would I have changed anything? I said we regret that the Indonesian government went through to the executions. - Andrew Colvin

Q) If Australians give you information on transnational crime, it could still end up in an execution?

A) I'd love to give you a guarantee that that won't happen. We don't know where the information will go. We don't know who is involved, what the drugs are, it's easy in hindsight to look back. When you have the picture the jigsaw is a lot easier to put together but when all you have is pieces it's very difficult to gut together. - Andrew Colvin

Q) Given what you now know - that it resulted in those executions - would you act in exactly the same way in terms of your relationship with the Indonesians?

A) I can't give you an ironclad yes or no, because each situation is different. You must understand that investigations start from seed information and we don't always know where they will go. In this case, it helped us identify a broader syndicate. It helped us take out a broader syndicate. It helped protect Australia from future importations and that's a difficult truth of the matter. - Andrew Colvin

Q) Which way do you believe your agency would go faced with an identical set of circumstances today?

A) Faced with an identical set of circumstances and the guideline that we have now, I believe that our investigators would need to take into account a number of different factors. They may well not choose to go down the same path they did in 2005 but I can't get into the mind of every investigator and know everything that they're thinking. - Andrew Colvin

Q) You think it's likely though the outcome would be different?

A) I believe it's likely but I cannot give you a firm answer one way or the other because every circumstance is different. - Andrew Colvin

Q) If Australians today believe we have information about transnational crime or drugs, why would they give that information to you if they're concerned about it but are also concerned that giving information to the Australia Federal Police could lead to an Australian being executed overseas?

A) Let's put this in context. This was 10 years ago. The AFP conducts thousands of these investigations each and every day. Our job is to combat transnational crime. We need the community to work with us. They do work very well with us. Out there in the community there is a great deal of support for the AFP and its work in this field. - Andrew Colvin

Q) Are you completely satisfied with the new guideline on AFP cooperation with countries that have the death penalty?

A) Am I completely satisfied? Yes. I think the guideline is appropriate. I think the guideline is good. The guideline was reformed and it should have been. It took into account circumstances that needed to be taken to account. I think the guideline is appropriate. In terms of should it be changed in relation to the events of last week - as tragic as those events were, and they were tragic - that doesn't change the facts from 10 years ago. The guideline was reviewed. Justice Finn made some very strong comments quite appropriately about what he believed the guidelines needed to include and that's been done. There is no new circumstances as a result of the executions. Other than the fact that the Indonesian government saw fit to go through with the executions. - Andrew Colvin

Q) Since the new guidelines in 2009, have there have been specific instances where the AFP has opted not to cooperate?

A) Yes, absolutely. Each and every day and we report these numbers to Parliament, our investigations take us down paths where we deal with countries that have the death penalty. - Andrew Colvin

In the last three years, we've had more than 250 requests in relation to matters that may involve the death penalty guidelines. Of those, we've not approved about 15 that haven't gone forward in terms of exchange of information. - Leanne Close

Q) Can you take us into your state of mind further at the time on the issue of the death penalty, how serious was this as an issue for you at the time? How did you test it, weigh up the benefits and the cons?

A) These are difficult decisions. I agonised over it at the time. As a matter of fact when the first decision was made to hand over information to the Indonesians by lower level officers I stopped it because I wanted to have a full briefing on everything that was happening at the time... to have as much information as I could to authorise the activity. - Michael Phelan

Q) Are there cases out there that you haven't solved because of the concerns about not passing on information that might lead to someone  being executed?

A) Absolutely. On instances where our investigators have appropriately made the decision not to share information, we're obviously in the dark. Sharing that information may have illuminated certain parts of a syndicate. That's the reality of the situation. We have a strong objection to the death penalty. The AFP takes it seriously. - Andrew Colvin