Dear Editor,
Several errors appear in Richard Ehrlich's article, "New Momentum for Cambodia's Khmer Rouge trial? US official says attempt will be made to indict 15 more top cadres"
First, the headline of the
article is completely erroneous in light of the errors in the article.
Second, I am not a United States official whatsoever, as erroneously
described in the article. I am the UN Secretary-General's Special Expert
on United Nations Assistance to the Khmer Rouge Trials, a fact reported
only later in the article. Third,my comment about 10 to 15 suspects was made only in response to a question about how many suspects were contemplated during the negotiations in the 1990s
that led to the creation of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of
Cambodia (ECCC). I emphasized that since then the Cambodian Government
has disagreed with that figure.
The article correctly reports on
the five indicted persons, one of which has been convicted, three of
which are on trial, and one whose fate remains undetermined. In addition
to the five persons already indicted, Cases 003 and 004 relate to five additional suspects.
In my Bangkok briefing I emphasized that these two cases are now before
the Co-Investigating Judges, who will investigate and decide if any of
these additional five suspects will be indicted and sent for trial. The
international Co-Prosecutor has on several occasions stated publicly
that he does not intend to initiate prosecution against any new
individuals not already identified in Cases 003 and 004. In my meeting
with journalists in Bangkok I said nothing to suggest otherwise.
David Scheffer, UN Secretary-General's Special Expert on United Nations Assistance to the Khmer Rouge Trials"
-----------
Many thanks your response. After
you spoke about an additional 15 suspects in your news conference, I
see that I mistakenly included them in Cases 003 and 004 -- which
actually has only five additional suspects. I now understand that, in
response to my later questions, you were still speaking about those *five additional suspects* in those cases, and not the *15*.
As a result, those numbers -- five instead of 15 -- have been fixed in a newer edit of the story, which is now online.
Concerning your other two
points: As you know, you are an official -- in this case the UN
Secretary-General's Special Expert on United Nations Assistance to the
Khmer Rouge Trials -- which you agree was *a fact reported* in this
story.
You are also an American (you
did not mention any other nationality in your statement, or your
response). Placing those two adjectives together in the story,
introduces you as a US official, rather than for example, a Cambodian
official, or -- if you had a different profession -- a US author, or
Cambodian author etc.
As you see, the word
"government" does not appear between the two adjectives "US" and
"official,* just as they do not appear in the example *US* and *author*.
I'm always open to suggestions
from readers, however, to make news stories easier to understand. If
some readers, such as yourself, imagine the word *government* invisibly
wedged between the adjectives *US* and *official* -- or personally
*feel* that it *implies* such an impression -- then I will arrange those
adjectives in a way less likely to confuse those readers.
If I knew in advance that you
would have such an interpretation in mind, when reading those two
adjectives together, I would have included a third *adjective* so it
says: *an American UN official.*
As you will see in the newly posted edit, those *three* adjectives are included to introduce you.
Cheers, Richard S. Ehrlich
No comments:
Post a Comment