Conflicts of Interest - Serious Concerns Arising From The Appointment of H.E. Dr. Helen Jarvis As The New Head of The Victims Unit at The ECCC

Cambodian Center for Human Rights

PRESS RELEASE

Phnom Penh, June 10, 2009

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST - SERIOUS CONCERNS ARISING FROM THE APPOINTMENT OF H.E. DR. HELEN JARVIS AS THE NEW HEAD OF THE VICTIMS UNIT AT THE ECCC

The Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR) is extremely concerned about the recent appointment of Dr. Helen Jarvis as Head of the Victims Unit of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), otherwise known as the Khmer Rouge Tribunal (KRT). Aside from the question of Dr. Jarvis’ qualifications for the role, the appointment raises serious concerns regarding conflicts of interest that bring into question Dr. Jarvis’ ability to fulfil the role and thereby threaten to undermine the interests of the Victims and the KRT itself.

The most worrying conflict of interest arises out of Dr. Jarvis’ relationship with the Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC). Dr. Jarvis is an advisor to the RGC. The CCHR and many others have raised already the serious issue of sustained political interference at the KRT, best represented by the deadlock over further prosecutions. Further, the timing of Dr. Jarvis’ appointment comes against a backdrop of increased national and international media interest in the allegations of corruption at the KRT as well as the unexpected and, as yet unexplained, resignation of her predecessor. As Head of the Victims Unit, Dr. Jarvis must work to facilitate the effective participation of Victims in proceedings, including the submission of complaints to the co-Prosecutors who must take the interests of Victims into account when considering whether to initiate an investigation or a prosecution. The CCHR is not convinced that Dr. Jarvis can maintain her duty to act in the Victims’ best interests, given that her role entails a capacity to contribute to future prosecutions and ongoing investigations involving potentially negative consequences for the RGC. Indeed, the CCHR is concerned that the appointment of Dr. Jarvis to Head of the Victims Unit is a politicallymotivated decision and one that is designed to further strengthen the RGC’s control over proceedings.

It is yet to be clarified whether Dr. Jarvis continues to function as the KRT’s Ethics Monitor, notwithstanding her recent appointment as Head of the Victims Unit. As the Ethics Monitor functions as the sole KRT employee responsible for investigating corruption allegations within the court, these positions are blatantly irreconcilable and could not conceivably be held by one person.

The Nuon Chea and Ieng Sary defence teams have raised the issue of Dr. Jarvis’ conflicting outreach role. It remains unclear as to what role Dr. Jarvis will continue to play in this regard. Nevertheless, assuming that her outreach activities are limited purely to the Victims – or “micro-outreach” to use a phrase coined recently – we are still left to ask whether or not Dr. Jarvis’ transition from voice of the entire KRT to that of the Victims’ advocate can plausibly be a seamless one. The former role requires objectivity towards all units within the KRT, whereas the latter necessarily requires promoting the best interests of one party – the Victims. As Public Affairs chief (and Ethics Monitor), Dr. Jarvis may have been privy to information that precludes her from full and effective Victims’ representation, as she may be obliged to withhold information material to the Victims’ objectives.

Further, recent revelations have suggested that Dr. Jarvis’ political views might be directly at odds with Victims’ advocacy. Not only do these reported views suggest an utter disregard for the rule of law and the legal process underway at the KRT, they ironically and perversely lend themselves to comparison with the alleged philosophy of the Khmer Rouge regime. They most certainly do not fit well with the role of Head of the Victims’ Unit.

Dr. Jarvis’ new role might therefore conflict with at least four noted interests. These conflicts would bring into question Dr. Jarvis’ ability to fulfil the role of Head of the Victims Unit and jeopardise the rights of the victims to representation and full participation in the legal process. The Internal Rules stipulate that the KRT cannot function successfully without the full participation of the Victims. Further, this appointment will inevitably arouse further public suspicion of the KRT, generate distrust of the Victims’ Unit by both the public and the Victims themselves and damage the legacy of the court.

The CCHR therefore strongly urges the United Nations and the Cambodian side at the KRT to address this serious issue of concern by suspending Dr. Jarvis’ appointment as a matter of urgency and until the conflicts of interest alleged above and elsewhere have been properly investigated and it is found beyond reasonable doubt that no such conflicts exist. The CCHR encourages other NGOs to echo this call, in the interests of the Victims and of the KRT as a whole.

For more information, please contact:

Mr. Ou Virak, President, CCHR
Tel: +855 12 404051
Email: ouvirak@cchrcambodia.org

Ms. Krissie Hayes, Legal Officer, CCHR
Tel: +855 92 943529
Email: krissie_hayes@cchrcambodia.org

Helen Jarvis is under fire and she's capable: She can work within a legal system which she has no respect for

Head of Tribunal Victim Unit Under Fire

By Kong Sothanarith, VOA Khmer
Original report from Phnom Penh
09 June 2009

Defense lawyers and monitors at the Khmer Rouge tribunal are unhappy with the Australian head of the Victims Unit, which is responsible for outreach and help for civil parties at the UN-backed court.

“The head of this unit should be Cambodian, and the Cambodian government should replace her,” said Youk Chhang, director of the Documentation Center of Cambodia, an independent research group.

Helen Jarvis, who had headed public affairs operations at the court and recently moved to the Victims Unit, is also facing charges of political bias. Tribunal officials say they will hold a press conference on the matter Wednesday.

In a press conference last week, Micheal Pestman, lawyer for “Brother No. 2” Nuon Chea, said that a lack of impartiality by Jarvis, who is a former adviser to the government, affected the fairness of the tribunal.

“It will be a danger for the proceedings,” said Ang Udom, a defense lawyer for former foreign minister Ieng Sary. “We must think that Mrs. Jarvis is connected with policy in Cambodia and in her country. Will she be able to maintain independence?”

Jarvis declined to comment, saying the matter “will be handled by the court.”

Jarvis was moved to replace Keat Bophal, who resigned from the Victims Unit earlier this year. Jarvis was also a member of the government task force to establish the tribunal.

“We can’t be at the same time head of Victims Unit, an adviser to the government and a member of the task force,” Youk Chhang said.

A non-Cambodian in charge of victims will have problems “because of cultural and language problems,” he said.

Council of Ministers spokesman Phay Siphan said Jarvis was the right person for the job. “She is capable,” he said. “She can speak Khmer, English and also French.”

Attacks on Jarvis multiply

Helen Jarvis (Photo by: Tracey Shelton)

Monday, 08 June 2009
Written by Robbie Corey-Boulet
The Phnom Penh Post

ECCC's head of Victims' Unit under fire from defence teams.

THE DEFENCE team for Khmer Rouge foreign minister Ieng Sary on Thursday registered concerns about the recent appointment of former tribunal spokeswoman Helen Jarvis as head of the court's Victims' Unit, arguing in a letter dated June 4 that her new duties conflicted with her outreach responsibilities.

The letter, addressed to the court's Deputy Director of Administration Knut Rosandhaug, also calls for an administrative inquiry into allegations that Jarvis's expressed political views could compromise her work at the court. In addition, it points to a book Jarvis co-authored in 2004 that the defence team said "strongly implies that Dr Jarvis has preconceptions about the alleged crimes", namely that they constituted genocide.

The bulk of the letter, though, concerns the conflict that will allegedly arise when Jarvis, who became head of the Victims' Unit last Monday, combines the responsibilities of that role with her outreach work.

"We are firmly of the view that amalgamating outreach activities of the entire court together with the interests of the Victims' Unit creates an inescapable conflict of interest for Dr Jarvis through no fault of her own," the letter states.

In an interview Sunday, co-lawyer Ang Udom said the switch from court spokespwoman to Victims' Unit chief amounted to a switch from an objective administrator to active party, making it impossible for her to impartially perform outreach duties.

"Jarvis used to work just with the administration," Ang Udom said. "But when she becomes chief of the Victims' Unit ... she becomes very active in the court process. She is a party in the court."

Andrew Ianuzzi, a legal consultant for Nuon Chea's defence team, said he "absolutely" agreed with the position articulated by Ang Udom and Michael Karnavas, Ieng Sary's international co-lawyer.

"The trouble is, I think that the court has done a pretty bad job of explaining what her outreach roles will encompass," Ianuzzi said.

Court spokesman Reach Sambath said Sunday that court officials had, before making the appointment, concluded that they could avoid a conflict by limiting Jarvis's involvement in outreach to what he termed "micro-outreach".

"We divided this very clearly, because public affairs will continue to focus on macro-outreach," he said. "And the Victims' Unit will minimise their outreach to micro-outreach. That means all the important work related to outreach activities will still be in the Public Affairs Section, and the Victims' Unit will focus on outreach for the victims."

But the May 18 press release announcing the appointment states: "Dr Helen Jarvis will continue to have oversight of [outreach] work."

Ianuzzi said the distinction between "macro-outreach" and "micro-outreach" was not made at the time of the announcement, adding that he had never heard of it before.

He said he had no problem with Jarvis performing outreach duties that were restricted to her role as head of the Victims' Unit.

Jarvis declined to comment Sunday, saying she had not seen the June 4 letter.

The defence teams for former Khmer Rouge head of state Khieu Samphan and former social minister Ieng Thirith have yet to weigh in on the appointment. Sa Sovan, Khieu Samphan's co-lawyer, and Phat Pov Seang, Ieng Thirith's co-lawyer, both declined to comment Sunday.

Past writings

Concerns about Jarvis's political views were raised last week by Nuon Chea's defence team, which singled out a 2006 open letter signed by members of the Democratic Socialist Perspective's Leninist Party Faction, including Jarvis.

The letter states: "Against the bourgeoisie and their state agencies we don't respect their laws and their fake moral principles."

Karnavas said via email: "If she has made those comments and if she is an unrepentant Marxist-Leninist with views that are antithetical to the founding laws and principles of the Cambodian Judicial System, then, at a minimum, the inevitable perception that will arise whenever she is called upon to make an important or difficult decision is that she is promoting her revolutionary agenda."

Ianuzzi said the idea of an administrative inquiry was "probably not a bad idea".

Reach Sambath declined to say whether an administrative inquiry was underway.

The June 4 letter also singles out a book Jarvis co-authored in 2004 with the British journalist Tom Fawthrop titled Getting Away with Genocide: Cambodia's Long Struggle Against the Khmer Rouge.

The Ieng Sary defence team argues in the letter that the use of the word "genocide" calls into question Jarvis's "absolute impartiality", a requirement for spokespersons, which the letter argues has been established at other tribunals.

Karnavas said the book indicates that Jarvis "holds some strong opinions which ... call into question her objectivity".

Ianuzzi, who said he had not read the book, seconded that charge, saying, "Certainly it sounds like she has made up her mind about the fact of a genocide."

ADDITIONAL REPORTING BY NETH PHEAKTRA