Overview of the Khmer Rouge regime by Craig Etcheson, whose examination is postponed sine die

Kambol (Phnom Penh, Cambodia). 26/11/2008: Curtains used for proceedings in camera, shown during a mock trial organised by the ECCC defence section for law students (Photo: John Vink/ Magnum)

21-05-2009
By Stéphanie Gée
Ka-set

Yet another morning with no hearing for the audience at the Khmer Rouge Tribunal on Thursday May 21st. From the outset, the Trial Chamber announced its intention to hold a trial management meeting between the parties, to which neither the public nor the civil parties were admitted. Before lunch break, the curtains opened and the president of the court announced that the defence recognised as an expert American Craig Etcheson, who was on the stand since Monday, and did not contest his report, “Overview of the Hierarchy of Democratic Kampuchea”, which provides the basis for his testimony. On the previous days, the international co-lawyer of Duch had disturbed the substantial debate by contesting the amount of documents in connection with the expert's testimony that had been produced in the hearing as well as his current professional status...

The president concluded that “consequently, it [was] not necessary to read each annexed document,” as the international co-Prosecutor had started doing on the previous day. The Chamber considered the documents in annexes as being integral parts of the expert's report. When the debate resumed at 1.30pm, François Roux, French co-lawyer for the accused, specified the defence's position on the issue, saying he “indeed agreed to consider that all these documents come in support of the report and that these documents and report will be debated and added to the case file.”

However, Roux continued, “the defence insists on the fact that after July 2007, Craig Etcheson was directly involved in the prosecution against the accused and in these conditions, his testimony as expert must not deal with the period after July 2007” or the documents he had hold of beyond that date, when his report was written but also when Duch was indicted. He recalled that the American then already worked as an investigator with the office of the co-Prosecutors of the tribunal and was therefore a party to the trial.

Click to Read More...