DPA
Phnom Penh - The investigating judges at the UN-backed Khmer Rouge tribunal threatened to bring contempt of court charges against any media quoting from a leaked document.
The document relates to the court's third case, in which two senior former military officers in the Khmer Rouge face charges. Each is suspected of being responsible for thousands of deaths.
The leaked file contains the alleged crimes that prosecutors requested the judges investigate and was quoted in an article this week in the US-based Christian Science Monitor newspaper.
The investigating judges said Thursday that it was apparent that 'a disloyal staff member' had leaked the prosecutors' submission.
The move came after weeks of criticism by tribunal observers alleging that the investigating judges have deliberately botched case three and were preparing to do the same with case four.
The Cambodian government has long said it would not permit either case to go to trial on the grounds that trying the five former Khmer Rouge cadres involved could spark conflict.
The five are thought to be responsible for tens of thousands of deaths during the movement's rule of Cambodia from 1975 to 1979.
On Tuesday, the investigating judges said they would not investigate further in case three. The announcement followed a statement last month by international prosecutor Andrew Cayley, who called their 20-month-long investigation deficient.
Cayley's comments revealed the investigating judges - Germany's Siegfried Blunk and Cambodia's You Bunleng - had failed to undertake such basic steps as questioning the two suspects in case three or visiting sites where their alleged crimes had taken place.
In late May, the United Nations rejected allegations it had interfered with investigations at the war crimes tribunal or put any pressure on the investigating judges to scupper the cases.
The court's second case, against four senior surviving leaders of the movement, was scheduled to begin June 27.
More than 2 million people are thought to have died during the Khmer Rouge's rule.
No comments:
Post a Comment