The Khmer Rouge trial under the gaze of history

Ieng Thirith during a pre-trial hearing before the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia on 30 Apr 2010. She was the former Khmer Rouge minister of social action, currently charged with genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva conventions and crimes under the 1956 Cambodian Penal Code. Photo courtesy ECCC POOL/Tang Chhin Sothy.

Jun 18, 2011
By Albeiro Rodas
AsianCorrespondent.com

Sihanoukville - In the history of persons indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity, it is not usual to see a woman. It is like leaders of violence and cruelty were men most of the time. However, if behind every great man there’s a great woman, behind every male criminal leader it seems that there is also a woman. In the case of former ministry of social action during the Democratic Kampuchea period (1975-1979), Ieng Thirith, she seems located not only behind his husband, Ieng Sary, and his brother-in-law, Pol Pot, but she is also accused as direct responsible of infamous crimes like extermination, imprisonment and persecution.

The credibility of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia – a UN-Cambodian tribunal to prosecute the surviving senior leaders of the Democratic Kampuchea and the most responsible persons for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide – is under question. ECCC is about to start Case 002 this coming 27 of June among serious critics from human rights organizations and groups of Khmer Rouge’s victims after the co-judges closed Case 003 in April that could bring about two more defendants to court. Observers conclude that it is probably that ECCC bowed to government pressure and UN’s inaction, although the tribunal and the UN defend their independence and accuse of ‘media speculations.’

But with this turbulent sea of critics, ECCC is about to set a historical date this month when persons like Ieng Thirith, her husband Ieng Sary, Khieu Samphan and Noun Chea, will answer in front to a court for their actions as political leaders of the bloody regime. It is sure that human rights groups, groups of victims and the press will follow the prosecutions carefully and that ECCC will meet more pressure from the public opinion with questions of why these four persons are considered since the beginning the ‘only four surviving senior Khmer Rouge leaders,’ as only responsible for the disappearance of 1 million 700 persons approximately – Did they do all those crimes? – or why the role of the victims is so limited at the tribunal, almost as just observers.

Long years have passed since Democratic Kampuchea fall. ECCC is probably the most late, slow and costly tribunal for crimes against humanity in history. But all these years of waiting have produced a long list of scholars, investigations, evidences and documents that are available everywhere. Then it is the main problem of ECCC: the judges have to give sentence on evidences that are already at the hand either of scholars or media or at the hand of victims and simple people. They know very well who did what. It is what will make the contrast of any sentence to be provided by ECCC: that if such sentence does not correspond with the well known evidences and the connection to the well known perpetrators, ECCC will fail in bringing the long-awaited justice and then, it will come by itself the most rigorous tribunal to utter sentence: the tribunal of history, which sentence could include the expensive ECCC.