Kambol (Phnom Penh, Cambodia). 26/08/2009: Ty Srinna, co-lawyer for civil parties, on Day 65 in Duch’s trial at the ECCC
(Photo: John Vink / Magnum)26-08-2009
By Stéphanie Gée
Ka-set
The issue of the admissibility of victims’ applications as civil parties in Duch’s trial was unresolved since the initial hearing on February 17th and 18th 2009. Two weeks ago, the Chamber asked the defence to prepare their observations on these applications, should they have any. The defence did. Since Tuesday August 25th, a heated debate started between the defence counsel and civil party lawyers, with the former challenging the legitimacy of some of the civil parties in the absence of adequate relevant documents while the latter protested such a questioning of the civil parties’ word barely a few weeks away from the end of the hearings.
26 civil parties challenged by the defence
Marie-Paule Canizarès, colleague of François Roux, Duch’s international lawyer, announced yesterday that the defence intended to challenge the admissibility* of 26 civil parties, all civil parties who did not request to be heard by the Chamber. These objections related to two elements: it appeared from the case file there was no filiation or other family link established between the civil party and the victim represented, or there was no element proving that the victim represented could have been detained at S-21.
Alain Werner: it is too late for such a questioning
It was time to discuss these contested cases, but Alain Werner, co-lawyer for civil party group 1, intervened to argue that, in light of Articles 23.4 and 83.4 of the Internal Rules, the examination of the admissibility of these civil party applications “at the initial hearing, not after” – even if Article 100 allowed the Chamber to rule on the admissibility of a civil party application in the judgment. “There is a rationale to this: when a civil party application is declared inadmissible, this allows for a means of redress […] for the civil party, who may appeal the decision before the Supreme Court Chamber.” The lawyer “preliminarily” asked the Chamber to “rule on this issue and say precisely whether or not the defence […] is entitled today, a few weeks from the closing of these hearings, to come and question the admissibility of the applications of 26 civil parties.” Alain Werner was immediately supported by the lawyers for the other civil party groups.
Click to Read More...
26 civil parties challenged by the defence
Marie-Paule Canizarès, colleague of François Roux, Duch’s international lawyer, announced yesterday that the defence intended to challenge the admissibility* of 26 civil parties, all civil parties who did not request to be heard by the Chamber. These objections related to two elements: it appeared from the case file there was no filiation or other family link established between the civil party and the victim represented, or there was no element proving that the victim represented could have been detained at S-21.
Alain Werner: it is too late for such a questioning
It was time to discuss these contested cases, but Alain Werner, co-lawyer for civil party group 1, intervened to argue that, in light of Articles 23.4 and 83.4 of the Internal Rules, the examination of the admissibility of these civil party applications “at the initial hearing, not after” – even if Article 100 allowed the Chamber to rule on the admissibility of a civil party application in the judgment. “There is a rationale to this: when a civil party application is declared inadmissible, this allows for a means of redress […] for the civil party, who may appeal the decision before the Supreme Court Chamber.” The lawyer “preliminarily” asked the Chamber to “rule on this issue and say precisely whether or not the defence […] is entitled today, a few weeks from the closing of these hearings, to come and question the admissibility of the applications of 26 civil parties.” Alain Werner was immediately supported by the lawyers for the other civil party groups.
Click to Read More...
4 comments:
Don't waste your time filing a complaint against Duch because you are not going to get anything in return . Duch will be in jail for the rest of his life . Go back home to be with your families and help them doing things around the house is better .
To 4:45 PM
Yes!..you are absolutely right. It wasting time on Duch's trail.
Also please read my words below:
Chakrupot Americ bombed in Cambodia during the 1970s and did not help Cambodia. I’ve been watching the news regarding the Khmer Rouge trail, I do not know when it would be over, probably until all Khmer (Cambodian) death and then it is over of the Khmer Rouge trail and there won’t be any more Cambodia country on the face of the earth. Let’s take a look at the daily life style of the Phnom Penh people who I can’t identify them if they are real Khmer or not, only the dark one like me I can identify. I reside in the Western part in Siam Reap; I don’t see this kind of people in where I am. If I do I would be dare taking care of it. I don’t want foreigner to come to my country and start to change Khmer tradition and culture and turn Cambodia down. I wish I could go back to the revolutionary living tradition, every body was very clean. The victory day of April 17, 1975, the wealthy, educator arrogant people Angkar took care of it; democratic Kampuchea did not keep those enemies. I committed to following revolutionary Angkar, I saluted Angkar what Angkar put me through. So Cambodian abroad must stand up fight with any enemy who wants to destroy Cambodia, forget the Khmer Rouge (Khmer), remember we all Khmer. It is vesting of time; we should put the money to save poor Cambodian instead.
(Those who writes long sentence like a whole book I won’t read it. Thanks.)
AngkorianMan Krama Man
Angkorianman, now I know how stupid you are!!!
That judge girl has HIV Positive!
Post a Comment