Updated January 17, 2012
The war crimes tribunal for senior members of the Khmer Rouge is once again being undermined by a feud between its Cambodian and UN-appointed staff.
While Case 2 continues to slowly investigate the role of three Khmer Rouge leaders, the controversial Cases 3 and 4 have been grounded since October, when a German judge quit, citing political interference by the Cambodian Government. Prime Minister Hun Sen, a former low level Khmer Rouge leader himself, and other senior Government officials have said they wont allow Cases 3 and 4 to go ahead. When the German judge quit, there should have been a swift and smooth transition to the reserve co-investigating judge, Swiss national Laurent Kasper-Ansermet. He's made it clear he intends to go ahead with Cases 3 and 4 and has asked - via Twitter - whether that push for justice is why Cambodia's Supreme Council for the Magistracy is reportedly blocking his appointment.
Presenter: Liam Cochrane
Speakers: Clair Duffy, trial monitor, Open Justice Society Initiative
- Listen:
- Windows Media
DUFFY: What happened at least according to reports late last week is that apparently the Supreme Council of the Magistracy convened. It's only role in the appointment of the international co-investigating judge should have been to endorse that appointment. But in fact reports were emerging that that body had actually rejected the judge and was going to communicate that to the United Nations. So we seem to be at yet another impasse in the progress of these investigations according to those reports.
COCHRANE: Has there been any confirmation of that from the Cambodian government, from the UN, from any of the players involved?
DUFFY: The Cambodian government has actually given two inconsistent reports. I believe one report was that they hadn't rejected the judge at all. Yet another report warns that that body had convened but a decision was still pending. But interestingly what they did yesterday is they gave a press conference claiming that that body actually does have the right to reject a judge if it so wishes. They also criticised organisations like our organisation for undermining that body's authority. But in fact all we did was actually cite the clear and unequivocal terms of the agreement, that's the agreement established in the court to point out that actually this body only has the authority to ensure that that judge is confirmed.
COCHRANE: And what has the judge in question, Laurent Kasper-Ansermet said about this development?
DUFFY: His response to this has basically been that he believes if there's opposition to his confirmation by the government that it's because it was well known already, since he stepped into that office in December, that he had every intention to pursue proper investigations and those two government opposed investigations.
COCHRANE: And of course the Cambodian government's opposition to Cases 3 and 4 has been fairly well documented over recent years, as well as the history of the Cambodian side dragging its feet throughout this whole process of the trial. But of course we have to remember this is a hybrid trial with the UN having considerable involvement and the whole thing being funded mostly by foreign donors. So what's the UN saying about all of this?
DUFFY: Well Liam this actually started to unfold early last week because both of these judges put out press statements again, another sort of series of communications between the two indicating controversy between them. The United Nations then responded last week saying that it was concerned that after three months of that post being vacant since Judge Blunk resigned that the Cambodian government still had failed to officially appoint Judge Kasper-Ansermet. That's the UN's reaction for now, but as we've been saying all along since Judge Blunk resigned in October last year, we wanted the UN to actually go to the heart of this problem, which of course is that the Cambodian government does not want to see these cases properly investigated, yet alone any of the suspects prosecuted. And I think back in October I said that if the heart of the problem wasn't addressed and they just put another judge in the position, you could pretty much guarantee that a little bit down the track we'd have exactly the same problems. And of course this is exactly what's unfolding right now.
COCHRANE: Do you think that the credibility of the United Nations is coming under question with its involvement in this tribunal?
DUFFY: Absolutely, I mean I don't think that's just happening now, I think actually throughout the course of last year, particularly after the closing of the Case 3 investigation when it was apparent that neither of the suspects in that case had been interviewed, brought in for questioning, witnesses hadn't been interviewed and crime scenes hadn't been investigated, I think already when people were crying out in public about that and the UN stood by in silence, it definitely came under legitimate fire I think. But of course as this has continued to unfold and the UN hasn't taken any strong action in relation to this, its credibility even more come under fire, particularly for future engagements by the UN in these kind of institutions.
COCHRANE: As well as the fact that the court of course costs millions of dollars to run each year, at what point do you think international donors should consider cutting their losses on this tribunal?
DUFFY: Well I would say definitely that right now things are at a heightened level of stalemate here. I think there has been a lot of problems in that particular office in trying to push these investigations forward. But when the United Nations, a party to the agreement can't even get a judge appointed, I really think the donors and the UN need to sit down and talk about what the serious options available to them are.
COCHRANE: Has there been any confirmation of that from the Cambodian government, from the UN, from any of the players involved?
DUFFY: The Cambodian government has actually given two inconsistent reports. I believe one report was that they hadn't rejected the judge at all. Yet another report warns that that body had convened but a decision was still pending. But interestingly what they did yesterday is they gave a press conference claiming that that body actually does have the right to reject a judge if it so wishes. They also criticised organisations like our organisation for undermining that body's authority. But in fact all we did was actually cite the clear and unequivocal terms of the agreement, that's the agreement established in the court to point out that actually this body only has the authority to ensure that that judge is confirmed.
COCHRANE: And what has the judge in question, Laurent Kasper-Ansermet said about this development?
DUFFY: His response to this has basically been that he believes if there's opposition to his confirmation by the government that it's because it was well known already, since he stepped into that office in December, that he had every intention to pursue proper investigations and those two government opposed investigations.
COCHRANE: And of course the Cambodian government's opposition to Cases 3 and 4 has been fairly well documented over recent years, as well as the history of the Cambodian side dragging its feet throughout this whole process of the trial. But of course we have to remember this is a hybrid trial with the UN having considerable involvement and the whole thing being funded mostly by foreign donors. So what's the UN saying about all of this?
DUFFY: Well Liam this actually started to unfold early last week because both of these judges put out press statements again, another sort of series of communications between the two indicating controversy between them. The United Nations then responded last week saying that it was concerned that after three months of that post being vacant since Judge Blunk resigned that the Cambodian government still had failed to officially appoint Judge Kasper-Ansermet. That's the UN's reaction for now, but as we've been saying all along since Judge Blunk resigned in October last year, we wanted the UN to actually go to the heart of this problem, which of course is that the Cambodian government does not want to see these cases properly investigated, yet alone any of the suspects prosecuted. And I think back in October I said that if the heart of the problem wasn't addressed and they just put another judge in the position, you could pretty much guarantee that a little bit down the track we'd have exactly the same problems. And of course this is exactly what's unfolding right now.
COCHRANE: Do you think that the credibility of the United Nations is coming under question with its involvement in this tribunal?
DUFFY: Absolutely, I mean I don't think that's just happening now, I think actually throughout the course of last year, particularly after the closing of the Case 3 investigation when it was apparent that neither of the suspects in that case had been interviewed, brought in for questioning, witnesses hadn't been interviewed and crime scenes hadn't been investigated, I think already when people were crying out in public about that and the UN stood by in silence, it definitely came under legitimate fire I think. But of course as this has continued to unfold and the UN hasn't taken any strong action in relation to this, its credibility even more come under fire, particularly for future engagements by the UN in these kind of institutions.
COCHRANE: As well as the fact that the court of course costs millions of dollars to run each year, at what point do you think international donors should consider cutting their losses on this tribunal?
DUFFY: Well I would say definitely that right now things are at a heightened level of stalemate here. I think there has been a lot of problems in that particular office in trying to push these investigations forward. But when the United Nations, a party to the agreement can't even get a judge appointed, I really think the donors and the UN need to sit down and talk about what the serious options available to them are.
No comments:
Post a Comment