THE DRAFT LAW ON PEACEFUL DEMONSTRATIONS IS SERIOUSLY FLAWED

PRESS RELEASE
Phnom Penh, 19 June 2009

The CCHR is concerned that certain provisions within the current proposed law on
demonstrations will seriously impinge upon Cambodia’s national and international
human rights obligations.

The reality is that peaceful assemblies, currently and historically, have lead disruption of
public order. The unfortunate reality is that some form of regulation is required.
Nevertheless, the fragile balance between upholding peoples’ right to freedom of speech
and association, and protection of the public from mass violence, is one which must be
vehemently and carefully maintained. In times of peace, this balance must fall in favour
of the freedoms enshrined in a democracy.

Furthermore, due attention must be given to the context in which this law is being
released. Freedom of speech and association has been seriously threatened by
authorities within Cambodia in terms of, inter alia, the recent defamation and
disinformation cases and attempts by authorities to prevent public gatherings held by
local NGOs. This law and the timing of its release must be read in light of these events.
The proposed draft law has several provisions which appear to unnecessarily violate the
right to peaceful assembly. Of particular concern is the ambiguity surrounding the
definition of a “demonstration.” Article 4 defines Peaceful Demonstration as:

Peaceful demonstration is the gathering or procession made by a group of
people to demand, protest or express publicly their feelings/sentiments,
idea/opinion or will by using peacefully various forms or means.

However, read together with Article 3 which provides that this law does not apply to:
“gatherings for the purposes of...promoting awareness for social interests,” the
distinction becomes unclear, leaving subjective interpretation open to abuse.

CCHR also expresses concern with Article 14, Section 2 of the draft law, which discusses
peaceful demonstrations held on private and collective property. The current restrictions
on such demonstrations include a cap of 200 participants, a requirement of notice to the
provincial-municipal authorities, and a specified time frame of 6:00am to 6:00pm. These
restrictions seriously harm the peoples’ right to freedom of expression and freedom of
assembly. Individuals who wish to hold peaceful demonstrations and gatherings on their
property should be allowed to do so freely, without any intervention by the authorities.
Any misconduct resulting from such gatherings are governed by existing legislation,
relating to, for example, disturbance of the peace, trespass, or destruction of personal
property.

Furthermore, chapter 3, in particular Article 16, raises concerns due to its vague
terminology. Organisers of such demonstrations, whose identities are recorded pursuant
to Article 6, are “responsible for taking appropriate measures to ensure” that the
demonstration complies with the law and the preconditions determined prior to the
assembly. Whilst Article 21 states that a written warning shall be issued for the
organiser(s) of peaceful demonstrations who violate these provisions, there is no
explanation as to the consequence(s) following the receipt of a warning.

The draft law as it stands suggests that organiser(s) exert an unachievable level of control
over an indeterminate number of people, burdening organisers with full accountability
for the obviously unforeseeable factors which could influence the outcome of such an
event. The CCHR is concerned that this provision effectively constitutes a hidden bar on
peaceful demonstration, by leaving the organisers open to sanction for the
unforeseeable acts of those who attend the demonstrations, including, paradoxically,
those who attend peaceful demonstrations with the intention of disrupting them and
even attacking the demonstrators, this provision places an unjustifiably level of
responsibility on the organiser. The extent of the sanction, a warning, is undefined. The
CCHR fears that, by leaving organisers open to unspecified sanctions for the
unforeseeable acts of others, no one will be willing to organise a peaceful demonstration.
The CCHR reaffirms its support for the existence of a law on Peaceful Demonstration.
However, we would insist on the following amendments and clarifications:

• Firstly, the discrepancy between Article 3(3) and Article 4 must be resolved and
re-worded to avoid confusion.

• Secondly, gatherings held at places of private or collective property should not be
regulated or restricted by authorities, and are especially inappropriate within a
law governing peaceful demonstrations. This section is particularly unacceptable
given the excessive restrictions previously mentioned.

• Lastly, the CCHR is against the unreasonable obligations placed upon organisers.
The draft law should be amended to ensure these responsibilities are not overly
onerous. Furthermore, clarification is essential as to the ramifications of being
issued a “warning” as this will have major implications for freedom of assembly
within Cambodia.

For more information, please contact:
Mr. Ou Virak, President, CCHR
Tel: +855 12 404051
Email: ouvirak@cchrcambodia.org