The day began with a trip to the Extraordinary Chambers of the Courts of Cambodia, also known as the Khmer Rouge Tribunal. On this particular day, opening statements concluded in the opening phase of Case 002, where two of the three accused Khmer Rouge leaders stand trial. Former Foreign Minister Ieng Sary struggled through a page-and-a-half statement in which he claimed that the Trial Chamber's refusal to recognize the royal pardon and amnesty granted in 1996 by the former co-prime minister, King Sihanouk, constituted double jeopardy. Amidst labored breaths and remarks about his poor health, Sary said he was troubled by the Trial Chamber's reluctance to grant a stay while the Supreme Court deliberated on the issue.
Khieu Samphan, the former president of Democratic Kampuchea, then spent more than an hour accusing the co-prosecutors of building their case on guesswork, inconsistent evidence, and anonymous testimony. He derided their claims as being full of generalizations and heavily reliant on the accounts of journalists and authors, whose biased accounts were produced years after the fact. Samphan countered by saying that he actually helped to defend the country against the brutal Lon Nol regime when the U.S. carpet-bombing of Cambodia drove people from their homes. At one point, Samphan even mocked the fairness of the trial, recalling the Cambodian co-prosecutor’s statement that, under the Khmer Rouge, people were not entitled to fair trials by pointing out that she was conducting a trial 36 years after the fact based on circumstantial evidence.
Samphon’s Cambodian defense counsel attempted to exonerate his client by stating that, due to the structure of the Khmer Rouge regime, Samphan’s decision-making capacity was reduced to “window-dressing” alongside King Sihanouk. In fact, the defense counsel claimed that Khieu Samphon was a “slave” during the Khmer Rouge period, as was Pol Pot. The counsel would not respond to charges of crimes against Muslim Chams and Vietnamese. “Not every murder is a crime, not every killing is a murder, and not every murder is a genocide,” he said. In addition, he said that the exact number of casualties from the period remains in dispute, as many people survived and fled to other countries. In subsequent statements, Samphon's French defense counsel shifted the focus away from his client and implored the Trial Chamber to recall the "forgotten dead" killed or maimed by the U.S. carpet-bombing campaign. Placing the onus on the international community, he said, "Men make mistakes; they even commit crimes, but they are not monsters."
The trial concluded with international co-prosecutors and defense counsel arguing over the meaning of Ieng Sary’s refusal to testify in future hearings. The Cambodian co-prosecutor stated that civil parties and victims have been waiting to hear what the accused have to say and the refusal to participate constituted an admission of guilt. Sary's American defense counsel countered that silence does not imply guilt and berated the co-prosecutors for their lack of knowledge related to the judicial system and due process. The conclusion of the opening statements showed that the ECCC, for all its good intentions, is a farce that allows the accused and counsel alike to make a mockery of justice. The bombastic statements and emotional appeals were directed more at the audience than at the robed figures behind the glass window. Although a historic event and an interesting case study in international law, the trial seems to be conducted for the benefit of international spectators and does little to accomplish its purpose of bringing perpetrators to justice and providing victims with closure.
After the trial, we met with Chak Sopheap, an executive assistant at the Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR). Founded by Kem Sokha, CCHR is one of Cambodia's leading NGOs and focuses its efforts on protecting civil and political rights through advocacy, empowerment, and research. The organization facilitates several projects, including: overseeing community trainings and hearings to increase understanding of human rights amongst rural and urban Cambodians; hosting public forums, where communities are given a platform to address and understand human rights issues and violations; launching Sithi.org, Cambodia's first online human rights portal; facilitating the transfer of skills, tools, and knowledge to build awareness of all actors working to promote human rights through networking; forging stronger relations between business and human rights by speaking to businesses about their obligations to adopt human rights-friendly policies; protecting human rights defenders who find themselves subject to threats; promoting LGBT rights and educating society about sexual orientation and gender identity; assessing judicial fairness and measuring the outcomes against international standards through trial monitoring; conducting research and advocacy to end acid violence; and monitoring daily media to ensure freedom of expression. NGOs and unions are the main voices of opposition in Cambodia and the work of CCHR is truly inspiring. A very talented, diverse staff supports the organization and Cambodian society is becoming a better, safer place as a result of their efforts.
No comments:
Post a Comment