Photo: AP
International prosecutor Andrew Cayley (2010 file photo)
Robert Carmichael | Phnom Penh May 13, 2011
International prosecutor Andrew Cayley (2010 file photo)
Robert Carmichael | Phnom Penh May 13, 2011
Prosecutors at the Khmer Rouge war crimes tribunal in Phnom Penh are at odds this week after investigating judges said they have completed their work on their third case - reportedly against two senior former military commanders. Critics accuse the government of interfering in the high-profile prosecutions.
The war crimes tribunal in Phnom Penh has long been split over how many former Khmer Rouge cadres it should prosecute.
The international prosecutor Andrew Cayley said last year that he expected to see no more than 10 people stand trial for their alleged roles in the deaths of around two million people during the movement’s rule of Cambodia between 1975 and 1979.
But his Cambodian counterpart, Chea Leang, has opposed prosecuting more than five people. The first of those was the former security chief Comrade Duch, whom the court last year convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity. His sentence is under appeal.
The other four, who make up Case Two, are the movement’s last surviving senior leaders. Their trial is expected to start later this year.
But while those cases are moving forward, the Cambodian government has long opposed prosecuting Cases Three and Four - involving the five remaining suspects.
The prosecution is tasked with assessing the court’s investigation and determining whether or not there is enough evidence to proceed to trial.
This week international prosecutor Andrew Cayley said it is clear that much more work is needed on Case Three.
“If you’re asking me how much more investigation needs to be done, I would simply use the words “a significant amount” of investigation is still left to be done in that case,” he said.
Cambodia remains an authoritarian country and the government’s opposition to Cases Three and Four has had a chilling effect on the tribunal’s Cambodian staff, most of whom have refused to work on the cases.
This week the investigating judges in Case Three closed their investigation and handed the case file back to the prosecution.
Andrew Cayley explained what work is still needed.
“I don’t consider that the investigation is concluded and I’ve asked for a number of steps to be taken including the interviewing of the suspects who are named in the introductory submission, and a number of other steps including investigation of crime sites also originally named by the prosecution in the introductory submission, which haven’t been investigated at all,” he said.
Cayley’s comments appear to confirm widespread rumors that the investigating judges did very little work on Case Three.
But Cayley’s Cambodian counterpart, Chea Leang, later released a press statement recommending that Case Three should be closed.
Chea Leang said she had examined the case file, and decided that the unnamed suspects were not senior leaders and were not among those most responsible for crimes committed by the Khmer Rouge - the two categories that define those whom the court can prosecute.
With the Cambodian prosecutor, the government and the investigating judges all pushing to close Case Three, outside observers doubt that the prosecution will go forward.
International prosecutor Andrew Cayley’s last option for Case Three is to appeal its closure to a bench of five judges. Three of the judges are Cambodian and trial observers believe the bench would likely vote to dismiss the case.
---------------------------------
Cayley in the crosshairs
Friday, 13 May 2011 15:03
Phnom Penh Post
By James O’Toole
The Khmer Rouge tribunal’s investigating judges are considering initiating contempt-of-court proceedings against British co-prosecutor Andrew Cayley, a move observers said would deal a potentially critical blow to the reputation of a court already hobbled by allegations of political interference.
A source at the court said yesterday that co-investigating judges Siegfried Blunk and You Bunleng were “seriously” considering the move in relation to Cayley’s disclosure earlier this week of details of their investigation in the court’s third case.
The judges announced the conclusion of this investigation last month, though they provided no details about the case to the public, including the crime sites being investigated and the identities of the suspects, over the course of their work.
On Monday, Cayley therefore took the unique step of issuing his own statement detailing crime sites in the investigation and inviting victims to join the case as civil parties, as the judges had not done.
As he is permitted to do under court rules, Cayley also said he would request that the judges perform a series of additional – and seemingly basic – investigative steps in the case that had not been undertaken. These steps included the examination of potential crime scenes and the interviewing of the suspects, who were not even questioned by the judges over the 20 months that the investigation was open.
The identities of these suspects remain officially confidential, though court documents reveal them as former KR navy commander Meas Muth and air force commander Sou Met.
Yesterday, it emerged that rather than focusing their energies on these two former cadres, the judges were instead contemplating the initiation of contempt-of-court proceedings against Cayley himself.
“These proceedings are being seriously considered by the co-investigating judges,” a source at the court said yesterday, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
Under the rules of the tribunal, the judges may handle such proceedings internally or refer the matter to domestic authorities or the United Nations. The potential penalty facing Cayley was thus unclear yesterday, though any punishment handed down against him would almost certainly result in his departure from the court.
United Nations court spokesman Lars Olsen said yesterday that he had no information on the matter.
“The general principle is that the court will never make a comment about whether or not it is considering certain judicial decision,” he said.
Case 003 and the still-pending Case 004 have run up against stiff opposition from Cambodian officials, with Prime Minister Hun Sen declaring last year that they “will not be allowed”. The
limited investigation in the third case and the concealment of information about it has fuelled allegations that the judges have planned its dismissal in advance in the face of such pressure.
Proceedings against Cayley could have a potentially devastating impact on the legacy of a court set up with the goal of providing a model to the Cambodian justice system, said Clair Duffy, a trial monitor with the Open Society Justice Initiative.
“The really concerning thing about this kind of action is what it says about the potential repercussions for someone fulfilling an obligation and acting independently,” she said. “The example is that someone seeking to act with integrity but running contrary to political whims will be punished.”
The war crimes tribunal in Phnom Penh has long been split over how many former Khmer Rouge cadres it should prosecute.
The international prosecutor Andrew Cayley said last year that he expected to see no more than 10 people stand trial for their alleged roles in the deaths of around two million people during the movement’s rule of Cambodia between 1975 and 1979.
But his Cambodian counterpart, Chea Leang, has opposed prosecuting more than five people. The first of those was the former security chief Comrade Duch, whom the court last year convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity. His sentence is under appeal.
The other four, who make up Case Two, are the movement’s last surviving senior leaders. Their trial is expected to start later this year.
But while those cases are moving forward, the Cambodian government has long opposed prosecuting Cases Three and Four - involving the five remaining suspects.
The prosecution is tasked with assessing the court’s investigation and determining whether or not there is enough evidence to proceed to trial.
This week international prosecutor Andrew Cayley said it is clear that much more work is needed on Case Three.
“If you’re asking me how much more investigation needs to be done, I would simply use the words “a significant amount” of investigation is still left to be done in that case,” he said.
Cambodia remains an authoritarian country and the government’s opposition to Cases Three and Four has had a chilling effect on the tribunal’s Cambodian staff, most of whom have refused to work on the cases.
This week the investigating judges in Case Three closed their investigation and handed the case file back to the prosecution.
Andrew Cayley explained what work is still needed.
“I don’t consider that the investigation is concluded and I’ve asked for a number of steps to be taken including the interviewing of the suspects who are named in the introductory submission, and a number of other steps including investigation of crime sites also originally named by the prosecution in the introductory submission, which haven’t been investigated at all,” he said.
Cayley’s comments appear to confirm widespread rumors that the investigating judges did very little work on Case Three.
But Cayley’s Cambodian counterpart, Chea Leang, later released a press statement recommending that Case Three should be closed.
Chea Leang said she had examined the case file, and decided that the unnamed suspects were not senior leaders and were not among those most responsible for crimes committed by the Khmer Rouge - the two categories that define those whom the court can prosecute.
With the Cambodian prosecutor, the government and the investigating judges all pushing to close Case Three, outside observers doubt that the prosecution will go forward.
International prosecutor Andrew Cayley’s last option for Case Three is to appeal its closure to a bench of five judges. Three of the judges are Cambodian and trial observers believe the bench would likely vote to dismiss the case.
---------------------------------
Cayley in the crosshairs
Friday, 13 May 2011 15:03
Phnom Penh Post
By James O’Toole
The Khmer Rouge tribunal’s investigating judges are considering initiating contempt-of-court proceedings against British co-prosecutor Andrew Cayley, a move observers said would deal a potentially critical blow to the reputation of a court already hobbled by allegations of political interference.
A source at the court said yesterday that co-investigating judges Siegfried Blunk and You Bunleng were “seriously” considering the move in relation to Cayley’s disclosure earlier this week of details of their investigation in the court’s third case.
The judges announced the conclusion of this investigation last month, though they provided no details about the case to the public, including the crime sites being investigated and the identities of the suspects, over the course of their work.
On Monday, Cayley therefore took the unique step of issuing his own statement detailing crime sites in the investigation and inviting victims to join the case as civil parties, as the judges had not done.
As he is permitted to do under court rules, Cayley also said he would request that the judges perform a series of additional – and seemingly basic – investigative steps in the case that had not been undertaken. These steps included the examination of potential crime scenes and the interviewing of the suspects, who were not even questioned by the judges over the 20 months that the investigation was open.
The identities of these suspects remain officially confidential, though court documents reveal them as former KR navy commander Meas Muth and air force commander Sou Met.
Yesterday, it emerged that rather than focusing their energies on these two former cadres, the judges were instead contemplating the initiation of contempt-of-court proceedings against Cayley himself.
“These proceedings are being seriously considered by the co-investigating judges,” a source at the court said yesterday, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
Under the rules of the tribunal, the judges may handle such proceedings internally or refer the matter to domestic authorities or the United Nations. The potential penalty facing Cayley was thus unclear yesterday, though any punishment handed down against him would almost certainly result in his departure from the court.
United Nations court spokesman Lars Olsen said yesterday that he had no information on the matter.
“The general principle is that the court will never make a comment about whether or not it is considering certain judicial decision,” he said.
Case 003 and the still-pending Case 004 have run up against stiff opposition from Cambodian officials, with Prime Minister Hun Sen declaring last year that they “will not be allowed”. The
limited investigation in the third case and the concealment of information about it has fuelled allegations that the judges have planned its dismissal in advance in the face of such pressure.
Proceedings against Cayley could have a potentially devastating impact on the legacy of a court set up with the goal of providing a model to the Cambodian justice system, said Clair Duffy, a trial monitor with the Open Society Justice Initiative.
“The really concerning thing about this kind of action is what it says about the potential repercussions for someone fulfilling an obligation and acting independently,” she said. “The example is that someone seeking to act with integrity but running contrary to political whims will be punished.”
No comments:
Post a Comment