Khmer Rouge Tribunal: coalition of local NGOs concerned over limiting of victims' rights

Khmer Rouge Tribunal: coalition of local NGOs concerned over limiting of victims' rights
By Stéphanie Gée

23-03-2009
A week before the opening of the trial of former torturer Duch, it is not with arms wide open that the Cambodian Human Rights Action Committee (CHRAC), a coalition of 21 local NGOs, welcomed some of the last revisions of the Khmer Rouge Court’s Internal Rules , enforced at the beginning of March during the 5th Plenary Session of ECCC Judicial Officers. They convey “the failure of the [hybrid jurisdiction] to fully uphold the right of victims to participate in the trial process”, according to these NGOs, who, in a press release made public on March 23rd, urge the ECCC (Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia) to correct the situation.

However, the coalition of important organisations working for the respect of Human rights, democracy and the Rule of Law in Cambodia welcomed the efforts made by ECCC judicial staff to make the proceedings of the court “as fair and as efficient as possible”. They are particularly “glad to see that the ECCC has clarified the rules, at Internal Rule 23 (4), to make it explicit that Victims whose civil party applications are refused by the Trial Chamber can appeal this decision to the Supreme Court Chamber.


CHRAC point out three aspects which, they say, reduce the rights of Civil Parties. First, they denounce a new addition to the Internal Rules which leaves Civil Parties who have lawyers without the right to address the court [see box]. Whilst it is clear for CHRAC that it would be impractical to have all Civil Parties making individual interventions during the trial process, they consider “this new blanket ban as an unnecessary infringement on the rights of victims”, and an “equally unnecessary” limitation of trial judges’ powers to conduct the hearings they preside over. For CHRAC, it should be for the trial judges to determine, on the individual facts, whether or not the contribution of a Civil Party during proceedings would serve the interests of justice.



Then, the coalition deems inconsistent the fact that Civil Parties and their lawyers are denied the right enjoyed by the Co-Prosecutors and the Accused, or his lawyers, to make opening statements at the start of the trial (Internal Rule 89 bis). A few Civil Party lawyers have already expressed their concern [read on Ka-set Opening of Duch trial: civil parties demand right to speak on first day (18-03-2009)]. CHRAC also note that Civil Party rights are curbed in that they are unable to appeal the court’s Trial Chambers decision in regard to their civil interests unless the Co-Prosecutors make an appeal themselves, despite this right of appeal being, the NGOs insist, an unconditional right in Cambodian law.

Finally, CHRAC goes back over the “restrictive” timeframe for the lodging of civil party applications which was set in September 2008 to ten working days before the opening of the trial. As a consequence, as detailed in the press release, the application made by Norng Chanphal, a surviving victim of S-21, was rejected as it was submitted to the Court two days after the deadline [read on Ka-set Khmer Rouge Tribunal: Norng Chanphal will not be Civil Party at Duch trial (20-03-2009)]. But such deadlines do not appear in Cambodian law, they say. In the end, CHRAC concludes that Civil Parties will not enjoy the equality of rights, as parties, that they are entitled to in the trial.


CHRAC urges the ECCC to ensure that its Internal Rules are applied in a manner consistent with Cambodian law and do not impinge on the rights of Victims (as Civil Parties and also to simply remove the 10-day deadline for Civil Party applications.

Of the right of civil parties to intervene during hearings
Among the Internal Rules amendments adopted at the beginning of March and announced at the closing press statement of the 5th Plenary Session in Phnom Penh, ECCC judicial staff established that “where Civil Parties are represented by a lawyer, it is the lawyer and not the Civil Parties themselves who must make legal submissions before the Court. The amendments do not limit the rights of Civil Parties but instead, modify the manner in which these rights are to be exercised, due to the extremely large number of Civil Parties before ECCC proceedings, and the impracticability of concluding trials expeditiously if all Civil Parties were allowed to intervene on any matter at any stage of proceedings. These amendments do not apply where a Civil Party is being interviewed, and do not prevent a Civil Party from answering questions put to him or her by the Chamber”.