Appeal Court Ruling [in Mu Sochua's case] a Mockery of Justice: SRP MPs

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: 012 788 999
October 28, 2009

Appeal Court Ruling a Mockery of Justice

“[The IPU] observes with deep concern that the decisions such as those in question may have a dampening effect on the ability of members of parliament and, even more so, of citizens to criticize the conduct of government officials and hence may detract from democratic debate…” - Resolution adopted by consensus by the IPU Governing Council at its 185th session (Geneva, 21 October 2009)

PHNOM PENH – October 28, 2009

We, Members of Parliament of the Sam Rainsy Party strongly denounce the ruling of the Appeal Court today, which upheld the defamation conviction of MP, Mu Sochua. The Court’s decision confirms that there is no rule of law in Cambodia when a person dares to challenge the government.

The Appeal Court, ignoring principles of fair trial, blindly affirmed the decision of the municipal court: the accused was denied her rights to be represented by a lawyer of her choice, and to be judged by an independent and impartial tribunal.

Last week, the Geneva-based Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) adopted a resolution on this case, finding that “the threat of disbarment of [Mu Sochua’s] lawyer, which forced him to withdraw from the case, violated her right to counsel of her choice…whatever may have been the reasons for [his] withdrawal….” The IPU further concluded that “it is difficult to accept the argument of the authorities that no link exists between the risk of his being disbarred from the Bar Association and his having taken on Mu Sochua’s defence…”

The lack of reforms of the judiciary in Cambodia and the direct manipulation of the justice system by the executive branch must be condemned and immediate steps must be taken to allow judges and lawyers to exercise their roles and functions according to the rule of law and the principle of independence of judges and lawyers.

We acknowledge and highly value the presence of all local and international human rights organizations during the hearing today, and we call on civil society and the international community to continue their vigilance of the current surge of defamation cases against dissenting voices, and partisan political pressure on the judiciary.

The government must be held accountable to deliver clear results in the reforms of the judiciary and its commitment to democratic principles. Such manipulation of the judiciary to silence critics is a serious attack of people’s rights under the Constitution and international law, and can not be tolerated in a free society.

The full version of the IPU Resolution can be found at http://ki-media.blogspot.com/2009/10/ipu-resolution-regarding-mrs-mu-sochuas.html.

###

KKF: The trial of Venerable Tim Sakhorn is a mockery of justice

VENERABLE TIM SAKHORN TRIAL: A MOCKERY OF JUSTICE

PRESS RELEASE: 08 November 2007
Pennsauken, NJ, USA

On November 8, 2007, the Vietnam Court of An Giang Province brought Venerable Tim Sakhorn to the court for a trial after imprisoning him since June 30, 2007.

In June 2007, Venerable Tim Sakhorn was arrested, defrocked, and deported to Vietnam by Supreme Patriarch Tep Vong and the Cambodian government. Disturbing details reveal that Vietnam arrested and was interrogating Venerable Tim Sakhorn right the defrocking. Tim Sakhorn. Cambodia government were flip-flopping with the whereabouts of Venerable Tim Sakhorn.

On July 12, 2007, Venerable Tim Sakhorn was seen at a police station in Can Tho City and his whereabouts were reported to KKF. KKF promptly sent a report to the US State Department and other UN Human Rights organizations to notify them that Venerable Tim Sakhorn was being interrogated in Can Tho city, Vietnam.

On August 1, 2007, Vietnam admitted that it had arrested Venerable Tim Sakhorn for attempting to enter Vietnam illegally. However, instead of accusing Venerable Tim Sakhorn for the crime of entering the country illegally, Vietnam accused him for the crime of “Sabotaging the unification policy” under Article 87 of Vietnam’s Penal Code.

Faced with a lack of evidence for the above crime, Vietnamese officials proceeded to arrest and torture two Khmer-Krom women, Mrs. Neang Phe and Mrs. Neang De. They were forced to become witnesses and say that Venerable Tim Sakhorn was guilty. On August 23, 2007, the Khmer program of Radio Free Asia reported on how those two innocent Khmer-Krom women were threatened and tortured by the Vietnam authorities.

Venerable Tim Sakhorn is a Cambodian citizen. His parents and siblings currently live in Cambodia. If Vietnam intends to maintain credible diplomatic ties with Cambodia, its government should invite the representatives of the Cambodia government as well as Venerable Tim Sakhorn’s parents and siblings to attend the trial. None were presented at the trial. Is this a real friendship between Vietnam and Cambodia that Venerable Tim Sakhorn had tried to undermine or merely an excuse to halt human right movement? If Cambodia is an actually Independent country, why is Cambodia government scared to stand up to protect its own citizen?

Vietnam had tried to force Khmer-Krom famers including Mr. Chau In, to be a witness at the trial; however he refused to go because he felt that it was a set up. Mr. Chau In and other Khmer-Krom farmers have been filing complaints to demand returning their farmlands that have been confiscated by the Vietnamese authority. Instead of returning their farmlands back, Vietnam authority has used traditional dirty tactics to frame Mr. Chau In and other Khmer-Krom farmers and accused them of contacting Venerable Tim Sakhorn and contributes to undermining the relationship between Vietnam and Cambodia.

Khmer-Krom residents in An Giang province are aware that the Vietnamese government does not have a free and fair trial for Venerable Tim Sakhorn. Thus, many of the invited residents did not want to attend. At 4 a.m. of the November 8, 2007, the Vietnam authority sent a car to pick up Khmer-Krom Buddhist monks from a couple temples in Swaiton and Kro-Bao districts and some Khmer-Krom people to attend the trial to show to the world that Vietnam does allow Khmer-Krom to attend Venerable Tim Sakhorn trial.

At the trial, no lawyer was assigned to represent Venerable Tim Sakhorn and with no means to defend himself, the Vietnamese judge read the following,

“According to the judgment, Ven. Tim Sakhorn must be sentenced to 15 years. Since Tim Sakhorn admitted his crime (without letting him to defend himself), so he will be imprisoned for 1 year.”

In an attempt to make it legal so that they can imprison a Cambodia citizen, the Vietnamese judge proceeded to say,

“Since Tim Sakhorn was already imprisoned since June 30, Venerable Tim Sakhorn does not need to be in prison. Vietnam will take Tim Sakhorn around the country to see the development of Vietnam nowadays and will let him free after the one year sentence is over.”

Based on the judgment, Vietnam must be a “very big and very developed” country that's why it takes couple months for Ven. Tim Sakhorn to see all of it.

We are concerned about the safety and well being of Venerable Tim Sakhorn after this trial. There is no guarantee that Venerable Tim Sakhorn will not be placed in prison and be relocated to various provinces to avoid the truth being revealed.

The trial of Venerable Tim Sakhorn is a mockery of justice. It shows that the Khmer-Krom people have no rights to defend for themselves under the Vietnamese Communist regime. Not on one occasion did we hear the testimony of Venerable Tim Sakhorn since his arrest in Cambodia. It is also disconcerting to see the Cambodian government violating its own constitution by sending its own citizens to let other country judge and imprison. If Cambodia cannot protect its own citizen, especially the Khmer-Krom people who escaped the oppression of the Vietnamese Communist regime to live in Cambodia, then it should issue an official document to give Khmer-Krom people in Cambodia as refugee status so the UNHCR can protect them.

The Khmer-Krom people in Kampuchea-Krom will continue to be denied justice if they do not have the fundamental freedom as stated in international treaties and declarations. If Vietnam keeps violating the Human Rights of the Khmer-Krom people, the demand for the basic freedom of the Khmer-Krom people will never stop.

On behalf of the Khmer Krom people, we seek your help in an international cooperation to urge Vietnam to respect the Human Rights of the Khmer-Krom people, so the mockery trial as seen in Venerable Tim Sakhorn’s case will not happen again with the innocent Khmer-Krom people.

Respectfully Yours,

Thach Ngoc Thach
President of Khmers Kampuchea-Krom Federation

The Malyasians who helped Hun Sen nabbed Heng Pov are all smiles after Heng Pov's case is dismissed

Datuk Wahid Mohd Don (left) and Datuk Ishak Mohamed after court proceedings yesterday.

2007/08/15
Ex-Cambodia cop fails to get officers cited for contempt

New Straits Times (Malaysia)

PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court dismissed a contempt of court application by a former Cambodian police chief against a senior Immigration officer and a deputy public prosecutor.

Heng Peo’s Cambodian passport was revoked and he was deported from Malaysia.

Judge Tan Sri Richard Malanjum said the applicant, Heng Peo, failed to discharge the standard of proof required in bringing the action against Immigration enforcement chief Datuk Ishak Mohamed and deputy public prosecutor Hanafiah Zakaria.

"The standard of proof in a contempt proceeding is beyond reasonable doubt and the applicant failed to discharge that burden."

He said it was also an undisputed fact that the two did not breach any order of the Federal Court or Court of Appeal.

He said the complaint against Hanafiah was that he received a "thank you" telephone call from an Immigration officer as Heng Peo was taken to the Subang Airport.

"We have considered the grievances and are not satisfied that it amounted to contempt of court," Malanjum said.

He said Ishak had not only acted speedily but in accordance with the Immigration Act because the Court of Appeal did not make a prohibition order against his department.

"His (Ishak’s) act did not amount to contempt of court," Malanjum said in the unanimous decision. Sitting with Malanjum were Datuk Hashim Yusoff and Datuk Azmel Maamor.

At the outset of yesterday’s proceeding, Heng Peo’s counsel A. Sivananthan withdrew the action against Immigration director-general Datuk Wahid Mohd Don because he was overseas when the deportation took place. Wahid was earlier named in the application.

On Dec 21 last year, the Court of Appeal set aside the order of the High Court that Heng Peo be sent to Singapore, his last point of disembarkation.

Following the order, Heng Peo was immediately taken to the Subang Airport and sent back to Cambodia, despite his lawyers’ attempt to stay the deportation pending their appeal to the Federal Court.

Hanafiah appeared for the department at the Court of Appeal.

While Sivananthan and Abdul Shukor Ahmad filed their appeal documents with a certificate of urgency at the Federal Court registry, they were informed that Heng Peo had left Malaysia by a private plane at 12.35pm, an hour after the Court of Appeal delivered its decision.

On Feb 2 this year, Heng Peo, 52, obtained leave from the Federal Court to initiate committal proceedings against Ishak and Hanafiah.

In his submission yesterday, Sivananthan said the two had committed contempt because they had deprived Heng Peo of the opportunity to ventilate his appeal to the Federal Court.

He said a call at 11.45am by Immigration officer, Kasturi, to Hanafiah was questionable.

"Why say ‘thank you’ to him? It must be that she was informing Hanafiah that Heng Peo was being taken to the airport," he said, adding that an inference should be drawn that the DPP had knowledge of the deportation.

He said Ishak did not check with Hanafiah on the consequence of the Court of Appeal decision and instead acted on his own to hand over his client to Cambodian authorities.

Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, who represented the two officers, said there was a misunderstanding as to what transpired that day.

"It was a comedy of errors and the two had no intention of interfering in the administration of justice," he said.

Gani said the "thank you" call was normal and that he, too, had received such calls from accused persons in the past.

He said Sivananthan did not indicate to the prosecution that he was appealing to the Federal Court.

"He delayed in filing his appeal soon after the Court of Appeal decision as he was busy entertaining reporters."

Gani added that the department was right to deport Heng Peo because the Cambodian authorities had revoked his passport and Singapore had refused to accept him.

"Ishak was right to rely on a provision in the Immigration Act to deport him to Cambodia since he no longer had a passport," he said.

Cartoon: Illegal logging in Cambodia

Farmer: What did I do wrong?
Cop: Illegal logging
Bulldozers: Legal (logging)