By Ka-set
The Trial Chamber at the Khmer Rouge court rejected on March 27 the request, dated March 17, of the co-lawyers for Civil Parties-Group 2 to be able to make, like co-Prosecutors and the Defence, an opening statement at the beginning of Duch’s substantive hearing, according to a copy of that decision obtained by Ka-set.
On March 10, that court had indeed issued a Direction which stipulated that co-Prosecutors and the Defence would have a maximum of two hours each to submit an opening statement on the charges of the accused, but not Civil Party lawyers who will have to remain silent on the first day of the hearing. Among those lawyers, some opposed the request and estimated that their client’s rights were flouted and that the disposition was not in keeping with the general spirit of Civil Parties’ role in the proceedings, as they should be fully considered as a Party enjoying the same rights as others.
The Defence and co-Prosecutors opposed the request, as stated in the decision issued by the Trial Chamber. The latter reminds that the rights of Civil Parties somehow differ from those of other Parties. Thus, they are allowed to ask for reparations but however, their role is limited during the proceedings, which come as support to the work of co-Prosecutor. Judges also point out that the Cambodian Criminal Procedure (2007) does not grant Civil Parties the right to submit an opening statement in criminal proceedings. But, they say, national law applies primarily before the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC). They conclude insisting on the fact that the Internal Rules of the Tribunal do neatly reflect a balancing in the role of Civil Parties regarding the distinct roles of co-Prosecutors, the Defence and Civil Parties.
On March 10, that court had indeed issued a Direction which stipulated that co-Prosecutors and the Defence would have a maximum of two hours each to submit an opening statement on the charges of the accused, but not Civil Party lawyers who will have to remain silent on the first day of the hearing. Among those lawyers, some opposed the request and estimated that their client’s rights were flouted and that the disposition was not in keeping with the general spirit of Civil Parties’ role in the proceedings, as they should be fully considered as a Party enjoying the same rights as others.
The Defence and co-Prosecutors opposed the request, as stated in the decision issued by the Trial Chamber. The latter reminds that the rights of Civil Parties somehow differ from those of other Parties. Thus, they are allowed to ask for reparations but however, their role is limited during the proceedings, which come as support to the work of co-Prosecutor. Judges also point out that the Cambodian Criminal Procedure (2007) does not grant Civil Parties the right to submit an opening statement in criminal proceedings. But, they say, national law applies primarily before the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC). They conclude insisting on the fact that the Internal Rules of the Tribunal do neatly reflect a balancing in the role of Civil Parties regarding the distinct roles of co-Prosecutors, the Defence and Civil Parties.
No comments:
Post a Comment