Sentence upheld against opposition leader Sam Rainsy in the double jeopardy case brought up by Hor 5 Hong

Comrade Hor 5 Hong (left) and Opposition leader Sam Rainsy (R)

13 October 2011
Everyday.com.kh
Translated from Khmer by Soch

On 13 October, the Phnom Penh municipal court judge upheld the sentence against opposition leader Sam Rainsy who is accused in a defamation and disinformation lawsuit brought up by Hor 5 Hong. In its decision, the Phnom Penh municipal court sentenced Sam Rainsy to 2-year of jail time. The court re-opened its hearing following the appeal by Sam Rainsy on 22 September 2011. The hearing was originally planned for 05 October 2011, but it was cancelled as the judge was busy elsewhere.

--------

KI-Media Note: The case was tried in France once already. The French Supreme court exhonerated opposition leader Sam Rainsy, thus the term "double jeopardy" in this travesty of the law in the Phnom Penh municipal court.

Kangaroo Court in Cambodia Ignores The “Non Bis In Idem” Principle

September 22, 2011

KANGAROO COURT IN CAMBODIA IGNORES THE “NON BIS IN IDEM” PRINCIPLE

Today the Kangaroo court in Phnom Penh is holding a “rehearing” of my case related to a defamation complaint filed by current Foreign Minister and former Khmer Rouge prison chief Hor Nam Hong.

The case was first heard last April without my or my lawyer’s participation, and I was sentenced in absentia to two years in prison.

On May 5, 2011 my Khmer lawyer wrote to the President of the Court to oppose the above verdict on the basis of the universal judicial principle “Non bis in idem” (no one shall be twice tried for the same offence).

As a matter of fact, in relation to another defamation lawsuit filed against me in France by the same Hor Nam Hong, which is very similar in substance to the one he filed in Cambodia, the French Supreme Court ("Cour de Cassation") on April 27, 2011 declared I was not guilty of anything and Hor Nam Hong finally and definitively lost his case before the French tribunal.

Therefore, today’s “rehearing” is a violation of the “Non bis in idem” principle, especially in light of the difference in the degree of independence and respectability enjoyed respectively by the French (real) Court and the Cambodian (Kangaroo) Court.

Sam Rainsy

Elected Member of Parliament

New York City, USA

Sam Rainsy's letter to The Cambodia Daily about Hor Namhong's defamation lawsuits

September 6, 2011

The Editor

The Cambodia Daily

Phnom Penh

Sir,

In “Sam Rainsy’s Defamation Lawsuit To Be Reheard” (September 5, page 27), it was reported that “The case was first heard in April without Mr Rainsy or his lawyer’s participation, and a verdict has yet to be delivered.”

Actually, a guilty verdict was made public with a two-year imprisonment sentence handed down to me on April 25 by the Phnom Penh Municipal Court in relation to the defamation and disinformation lawsuit filed by Foreign Affairs Minister Hor Namhong.

On May 5, my lawyer wrote to the President of the Court to oppose my condemnation in absentia on the basis of the universal judicial principle “Non bis in idem” (no one shall be twice tried for the same offence).

As a matter of fact, in relation to another defamation lawsuit filed against me in France by the same Mr Hor Namhong, which is very similar in substance to the one he filed in Cambodia, the French Supreme Court ("Cour de Cassation") on April 27 declared I was not guilty of anything and Mr Hor Namhong finally and definitively lost his case before the French tribunal.

Therefore, the summons I received from the Cambodian tribunal to attend a “rehearing” of the case later this month, is a violation of the “Non bis in idem” principle, especially in light of the difference in the degree of independence and respectability enjoyed respectively by the French Court and the Cambodian Court.

Sincerely,

Sam Rainsy

Elected Member of Parliament

Paris

Amnesty, Double Jeopardy on Agenda for Tribunal Hearing

This combo shows file photos of the four top surviving leaders of the Khmer Rouge regime from left to right: Nuon Chea, the group's ideologist; former head of state and public face of the regime, Khieu Samphan, former Foreign Minister Ieng Sary; and his wife Ieng Thirith, ex-minister for social affairs (Photo: AP file)

Sunday, 26 June 2011
Sok Khemara, VOA Khmer | Washington, DC

“The court has enough competency and enough of a role in Ieng Sary’s case over genocidal crimes, and other crimes…to try him under its jurisdiction.”

In the days leading into the trial of four Khmer Rouge leaders, legal analysts say there are few if any past hindrances to the prosecution that would prevent full proceedings.

The trial for Nuon Chea, Khieu Samphan, Ieng Sary and Ieng Thirith officially begins Monday, when the four senior regime leaders will appear before the Trial Chamber of the UN-backed Khmer Rouge tribunal in a preliminary hearing.

The hearing will tackle some of the tougher questions for moving the proceedings forward for the accused, who are charged with a raft of atrocity crimes, including genocide, in what is expected to be a long, complicated trial, known as Case 002.

In the time since all four were arrested in 2007, defense lawyers have argued that amnesties promised by the government in the late 1990s, which helped dissolve the last of the Khmer Rouge after decades of civil war, would be relevant.

Lawyers Urge 'Urgent' Release of Ieng Sary

Ieng Sary

By Mean Veasna, VOA Khmer
Original report from Phnom Penh
02 July 2008

Click here to listen to the Khmer audio program

Jailed Khmer Rouge leader Ieng Sary appeared for a third day in pre-trial hearings, where the court heard arguments surrounding a royal pardon for a 1979 genocide verdict and death sentence.

Defense lawyers are pushing for Ieng Sary's release on the grounds that he has already been tried for genocide, by a 1979 court set up in the wake of the ouster of the Khmer Rouge by Vietnamese forces. As part of a deal with the government in 1996, then-king Norodom Sihanouk pardoned the former Khmer Rouge foreign minister in return for his defection to the government.

Ieng Sary, who was too weak to finish a hearing on Monday, sat quietly in the court room listening to the arguments.

"The amnesty and the pardon conform with the Cambodian constitution," said Ang Udom, Ieng Sary's Cambodian lawyer. "All the crimes that have been charged against him are under the dimension of this royal [decree]."

"The pre-trial chamber must order the release of Ieng Sary, urgently and without condition," Ang Udom told the court.

The pardon, granted Sept. 14, 1996, banned further accusations of Ieng Sary under an anti-Khmer Rouge law.

Michael Karnavas, co-defense for Ieng Sary, said Wednesday the pardon was approved by the National Assembly and co-prime ministers Prince Norodom Ranariddh and Hun Sen.

The co-prime ministers understood the necessity for amnesty for Ieng Sary, which led to the mass defection of Khmer Rouge troops to the government, Karnavas said.

Ieng Sary was an agent of peace, Karnavas said.

However, prosecutors and civil parties rejected the legitimacy of the pardon.

Co-prosecutor William Smith said Cambodia was a signature country to international genocide mandates.

According to international law, and to obligations of each country member, Cambodia has an obligation to charge against such kind of violation, Smith said.

The royal pardon was only for Ieng Sary's execution, and not to prevent the prosecution of other crimes, Smith said.

Civil parties, which participated in the hearing, explained that the pardon was involved with government policy at the time, and the royal pardon was motivated by peace and reconciliation for the country.

Former Khmer Rouge foreign minister claims double jeopardy at Cambodian genocide hearing

Wednesday, July 2, 2008
The Associated Press

PHNOM PENH, Cambodia: The former Khmer Rouge foreign minister faced Cambodia's genocide tribunal for the third day Wednesday after his lawyers argued that trying him violates "double jeopardy" principles because he has already been convicted on similar charges and pardoned.

The United Nations-assisted court has charged Ieng Sary, 82, with crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Earlier, Ieng Sary's lawyers argued that he should be released because of ill health that made him unable to fully assist his lawyers.

But on Tuesday, they tried to establish that trying him would constitute double jeopardy.

In many legal systems - including French law, upon which Cambodian law is based -a person generally cannot by prosecuted a second time for a crime for which a judgment has already been rendered.

Ieng Sary's lawyer, Michael Karnavas, sought to establish that the tribunal was bound by Cambodian law to honor the double jeopardy doctrine and that Ieng Sary had already been judged for his alleged crimes.

The tribunal, jointly run by Cambodian and international personnel, is attempting to establish accountability for atrocities committed by the communist group when it ruled Cambodia from 1975 to 1979.

The group's radical policies resulted in the deaths of an estimated 1.7 million people from starvation, disease, overwork and execution. Ieng Sary is one of five former senior Khmer Rouge being held for trial by the tribunal.

Ieng Sary was condemned to death in absentia for genocide in a tribunal instituted by a communist government that was installed in Cambodia by Vietnamese troops after they toppled the Khmer Rouge regime in 1979. The tribunal was a classic Soviet-style show trial, with no real effort to present a defense.

In 1996, Ieng Sary received a royal pardon from the sentence from former King Norodom Sihanouk as a reward for breaking away from the Khmer Rouge and leading his followers to join the government. The mutiny foreshadowed the rebel group's collapse three years later in 1999.

Karnavas, an American lawyer with wide experience in war crimes tribunals, argued that the concept of double jeopardy applied.

Referring to the 1979 trial, he said the current charges comprise the same elements as the genocide for which Ieng Sary was convicted.

One of the co-prosecutors, Yet Chakriya, responded that the current case is based on a different set of facts.

Ieng Sary is the only one of five defendants held by the current tribunal who was previously tried and pardoned.