Cambodia's Khmer Rouge tribunal risks becoming a sham.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
By JAMES A. GOLDSTON The Wall Street Journal (USA)
No court can be considered legitimate if its judges and prosecutors submit to political diktat. Tragically, the United Nations-backed court in Phnom Penh investigating and prosecuting those most responsible for the Khmer Rouge's crimes in Cambodia is at risk of doing just that.
The Court, called the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, has indicted a mere five people for the murder of close to two million between 1975 and 1979. Last week, the court's international co-prosecutor, Robert Petit, proposed that an undisclosed number of additional suspects be formally investigated -- a prelude to indictment. According to a Dec. 8 press release from Mr. Petit's office, his local counterpart, co-prosecutor Chea Lang, opposed the move. Because the process for resolving disputes between prosecutors is confidential, Ms. Lang's reasons for opposing additional investigations are unknown.
Mr. Petit has filed a formal "statement of disagreement" indicating his commitment to press ahead with additional charges. Under the Court's complicated structure, he can do this if authorized by the pre-trial chamber, an organ of the Court responsible for overseeing proceedings prior to trial and resolving disputes between co-prosecutors and co-judges. Prime Minister Hun Sen has in the past suggested that trying "four or five" people would be enough. Although most Cambodian officials today say that the government would not limit the number of people charged, the attitude persists that trying more people might be detrimental or destabilizing. Absent agreement between the two co-prosecutors, the Court's judges will be asked to resolve the dispute.
If ever there was a moment to show that the Court is not a tool of the Cambodian government, this is it. Unfortunately, court rules provide that this issue must be addressed out of public view. All should understand, however, that the court's very legitimacy to Cambodians and the international community is at stake. The Court must operate as transparently as possible in the coming days.
That will be difficult, given that the Court is the product of 10 years of negotiation between the U.N. and the Cambodian government. As a hybrid court, it has an awkward structure. The international and domestic co-prosecutors and co-investigating judges must agree before proceeding on major decisions. Where consensus cannot be achieved, a "super-majority" composed of at least one international judge is required for most significant action. This fragile arrangement has given rise to much skepticism about the Court's capacity to reverse a long Cambodian history of improper interference in judicial operations.
In the past year, too, serious allegations of corrupt employment practices on the Cambodian side of the court have emerged. The U.N. investigated the matter in September, but did not release its findings. A pervasive lack of openness at the Court has not helped. This is an especially serious situation as any forthcoming judgments will be potentially vulnerable to crippling legal challenges.
Yet the Court's greatest challenge by far is the new roadblock preventing further prosecutions. It has long been suggested that the limitation of charges to the five accused -- all former Khmer Rouge members, unconnected to any current senior government figures -- was a central part of the "unwritten bargain" that led the government to accept the Court. A number of senior figures in the current government apparently fear the potential consequences of establishing a model of transparency and accountability that might be applied more generally. Given the scale of the crimes and the breadth of criminal responsibility, any judicial process that arbitrarily narrows its focus to only those individuals would be a sham.
It is time for the donor governments that support the Court -- including Japan, France and the U.S., which recently pledged its first contribution -- to insist that the Court operate as a court of law. Anything less would be a betrayal of the memory of two million dead and numerous others who endured physical and psychological wounds. Both the victims of the Khmer Rouge and the next generation of Cambodians deserve an honest, judicial accounting of one of the worst atrocities of the 20th century.
Mr. Goldston is the executive director of the Open Society Justice Initiative, which provided advice and technical assistance during some early stages of the tribunal.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
By JAMES A. GOLDSTON The Wall Street Journal (USA)
No court can be considered legitimate if its judges and prosecutors submit to political diktat. Tragically, the United Nations-backed court in Phnom Penh investigating and prosecuting those most responsible for the Khmer Rouge's crimes in Cambodia is at risk of doing just that.
The Court, called the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, has indicted a mere five people for the murder of close to two million between 1975 and 1979. Last week, the court's international co-prosecutor, Robert Petit, proposed that an undisclosed number of additional suspects be formally investigated -- a prelude to indictment. According to a Dec. 8 press release from Mr. Petit's office, his local counterpart, co-prosecutor Chea Lang, opposed the move. Because the process for resolving disputes between prosecutors is confidential, Ms. Lang's reasons for opposing additional investigations are unknown.
Mr. Petit has filed a formal "statement of disagreement" indicating his commitment to press ahead with additional charges. Under the Court's complicated structure, he can do this if authorized by the pre-trial chamber, an organ of the Court responsible for overseeing proceedings prior to trial and resolving disputes between co-prosecutors and co-judges. Prime Minister Hun Sen has in the past suggested that trying "four or five" people would be enough. Although most Cambodian officials today say that the government would not limit the number of people charged, the attitude persists that trying more people might be detrimental or destabilizing. Absent agreement between the two co-prosecutors, the Court's judges will be asked to resolve the dispute.
If ever there was a moment to show that the Court is not a tool of the Cambodian government, this is it. Unfortunately, court rules provide that this issue must be addressed out of public view. All should understand, however, that the court's very legitimacy to Cambodians and the international community is at stake. The Court must operate as transparently as possible in the coming days.
That will be difficult, given that the Court is the product of 10 years of negotiation between the U.N. and the Cambodian government. As a hybrid court, it has an awkward structure. The international and domestic co-prosecutors and co-investigating judges must agree before proceeding on major decisions. Where consensus cannot be achieved, a "super-majority" composed of at least one international judge is required for most significant action. This fragile arrangement has given rise to much skepticism about the Court's capacity to reverse a long Cambodian history of improper interference in judicial operations.
In the past year, too, serious allegations of corrupt employment practices on the Cambodian side of the court have emerged. The U.N. investigated the matter in September, but did not release its findings. A pervasive lack of openness at the Court has not helped. This is an especially serious situation as any forthcoming judgments will be potentially vulnerable to crippling legal challenges.
Yet the Court's greatest challenge by far is the new roadblock preventing further prosecutions. It has long been suggested that the limitation of charges to the five accused -- all former Khmer Rouge members, unconnected to any current senior government figures -- was a central part of the "unwritten bargain" that led the government to accept the Court. A number of senior figures in the current government apparently fear the potential consequences of establishing a model of transparency and accountability that might be applied more generally. Given the scale of the crimes and the breadth of criminal responsibility, any judicial process that arbitrarily narrows its focus to only those individuals would be a sham.
It is time for the donor governments that support the Court -- including Japan, France and the U.S., which recently pledged its first contribution -- to insist that the Court operate as a court of law. Anything less would be a betrayal of the memory of two million dead and numerous others who endured physical and psychological wounds. Both the victims of the Khmer Rouge and the next generation of Cambodians deserve an honest, judicial accounting of one of the worst atrocities of the 20th century.
Mr. Goldston is the executive director of the Open Society Justice Initiative, which provided advice and technical assistance during some early stages of the tribunal.
5 comments:
sam Share visitors or readers to my blog too, I update too but no visitors te, Heheheeh
Thanks
yEP, the trial was not fair from the start.The main player in khmer rouge victory was Sihanouk.And where is he now ?.
Yeb. I heard that Sihanouk has said that he will go to the court if they need him.
But others like Hor 5 hong and the family tree & etc.......should go too.
kkk
Membership - Budget - Internal Rules & Regulations - Corruption - Additional Charges and many more.
All these obstacles are created just to refrain the court from performing professionaly in providing real justice to the dead and alive Cambodians. And all these obstacles also act to cover the other criminals in the eyes of Cambodian people.
End of the day "the court will perform just for the sack of covering up the criminals" otherwise there will be many more problems slowering the trial process till all the detained suspects died.
This is the tactic!
Khmers should see the big picture: Vietnamization!! One mastermind and the true Viet puppet Hun Sen who confused and complicate everything that yield the results against its boss-Vietnam and vietnamization!
And the Khmer Rouge court say it is technical or political problem? Say corruption now the khmer leaders confuse and politicise the case of corruption already--no willingess to investigate and arrest the culprits but rather establish complex procedure not to interrogate and arrest the culprits but to find who launch the complaints!!
Choy Kandoy Mae Ah current leaders!!!Fuck them all Ah Choy Mray.....
Post a Comment