Letter to the Editor of Asia Sentinel by Theary C. Seng

Dear Editor of Asia Sentinel:

I write to clarify on the issues of "personal jurisdiction" of the Khmer Rouge Tribunal in Simon Roughneen’s excellent article (21 April 2011).

The issue touches on a sensitive topic: whether the Tribunal should be limited to those deemed most responsible, or whether second tier figures should be tried as well. Duch, overlord of S-21 and Choeung Ek, has used a similar argument, saying he is being made a scapegoat while hundreds or more of similar-level Khmer Rouge killers get off scot-free. 

The Khmer Rouge Tribunal has the legal authority ("personal jurisdiction") to try only two groups of people:

(i) "senior Khmer Rouge leaders", that is to say, those who held senior positions covering all of Democratic Kampuchea during the Khmer Rouge reign, e.g., Nuon Chea, Khieu Samphan, Ieng Sary and Ieng Thirith (collectively in Case 002); and

(ii) "those most responsible"

that is to say, those not in senior positions who are responsible for countless deaths, e.g. Duch who was only the director of one S-21 (or Tuol Sleng)—out of 200 prisons—but there, at least 14,000 lives were lost (Case 001).

I lodged a civil party application in Cases 003 and 004 involving 5 additional charged persons, two of whom—Meas Muth and Sou Meth—could fall under the personal jurisdiction of either (i) "senior Khmer Rouge leader" for their role as commanders of the Khmer Rouge Navy and Air Force, respectively, contributing to the "joint criminal enterprise"/common design, or (ii) "most responsible" for their role as commanders of military divisions responsible for countless deaths.

There is no question that Meas Muth and Sou Met fall under the personal jurisdiction of the Khmer Rouge Tribunal in both groups. It will be a complete political farce if the Co-Investigating Judges rule otherwise by dismissing Case 003.

- Theary C. Seng, civil party applicant to Cases 003/004