CCHR PRESS RELEASE – 20 March 2013, Phnom Penh
CCHR welcomes the Court of Appeal’s decision to
release Mam Sonando but observes that the verdict was a classic example of
“rule by law” rather than “rule of law”
The Cambodian Center for Human
Rights (“CCHR”) welcomes
the Court of Appeal’s decision on 14 March 2013 to release Mam Sonando, but
observes that the verdict, in keeping with the entire case, was a classic
example of “rule by law” rather than “rule of law”. At the suggestion of the Prosecution, the
Court of Appeal dropped the more serious charges against Mam Sonando, namely
those prohibiting insurrection (Articles 456 and 457 of the Penal Code 2009)
and incitement to take up arms against the state authority (Article 464), but
retained the others – Article 504, which prohibits the obstruction of
public officials with aggravating circumstances, and Article 609, which
prohibits unlawful interference in the discharge of public functions, both of
which are brought by virtue of Article 28, which establishes criminal liability
for the instigation of a felony or misdemeanor under Cambodian law. He was then sentenced for an additional
charge – Article 97(6) of the Forestry Law 2002, which prohibits the
clearing or occupation of forestry land and carries a sentence of five to ten
years in prison. Mam Sonando’s sentence
was reduced from 20 years’ to five years’ imprisonment, with his prison term adjusted
to time already served, namely eight months, with the remainder suspended. He remains under judicial supervision for the
next three years.
In its 7 March 2013 Press Release, CCHR noted several legal and judicial
developments that have grave implications for due process in the Cambodian courts
and which deserve to be highlighted, namely that: (1) as CCHR stated in its
recently released Legal Analysis, no credible evidence was provided in court to
connect Mam Sonando with any of the events in Pro Ma village in the first half
of 2012, and so he should be acquitted of all charges against him; (2) while
technically in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code 2007, introducing a
new charge so late in the judicial process is contrary to Mam Sonando’s fair
trial rights protected under the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (the “ICCPR”) which Cambodia has ratified (and therefore incorporated
into domestic law); and (3) vital witnesses who testified against Mam Sonando
at the original hearing and received suspended sentences did not appear in
court – and were therefore unable to be cross-examined by Defense lawyers
while under oath – with the court curiously unwilling to compel them to do
so.
In addition, the new Forestry
Law 2002 charge seems to have been misinterpreted and misapplied by the court,
in particular with reference to the land concession granted to the development
company Casotim in 1996, which is at the center of the case. The original concession was a forestry
concession. However, according to two
letters – dated 12 March 2007 and 25 March 2008 from the Ministry of
Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries – 124,284 hectares of the forestry
concession were to be maintained as forest land, while 15,165 hectares were
earmarked to be cleared to make way for rubber and acacia plantations. Nevertheless, Mam Sonando was convicted of
instigating the clearing of land within these 15,165 hectares, i.e., land already cleared well before Mam
Sonando allegedly instigated the Pro Ma village residents to clear the forest
in February 2012. Furthermore, the very fact
that the land earmarked for plantation was carved out of the original forest
concession indicates that the forest had already been cleared back in 2007 or 2008,
because forestry concessions cannot legally be cleared and converted into
plantations under Article 33 of the Forestry Law 2002. Therefore, the Pro Ma residents would have had
to have cleared forest land – rather than land already cleared and approved for
development – for the charge to validly apply.
Furthermore, under the Land Law 2001 (Articles 16 and 17), in order for
a valid economic land concession to be legally granted – as required for rubber
and acacia plantations – the land must first be converted from “state public
land” to “state private land”, and there is no evidence in this case that it
was.
Despite these serious concerns
with due process and the rule of law as implemented by the courts, it is
important to recognize that one of Cambodia’s foremost independent voices is
free once more. His right to freedom of
expression is protected not only under the ICCPR but also under Article 41 of
the Constitution of the Kingdom of Cambodia.
Although Mam Sonando was kept in arbitrary detention for eight months
and the courts refused to acquit him of the remaining charges, his right to
freedom of expression has ultimately been safeguarded, albeit rather late in
the day.
CCHR President Ou Virak comments:
“Now that the
dust has settled on the events of last week and we’ve had an opportunity to
reflect on the Court of Appeal’s verdict, it is time to consider how we can
take things forward. The decision to
release him was undoubtedly a huge relief for Mam Sonando – a moment of real
happiness for him, his family and his supporters – and a boost for freedom of
expression in Cambodia. It was also a
political compromise, and much remains to be done before the rule of law is
respected in Cambodia. However, we at
CCHR would like to reconfirm our willingness to roll our sleeves up and work
with the Cambodian judiciary to help it try to establish the rule of law. The goal should ideally be a court system
that has the complete trust of the Cambodian public. It is not out of the question.”
For more information, please
contact Ou Virak via telephone at +855 (0) 1240 4051 or e-mail at ouvirak@cchrcambodia.org or Senior Consultant Robert Finch via telephone at +855 (0) 7880 9960 or e-mail at robert.finch@cchrcambodia.org.
Please also find this Press Release attached in PDF format, in both Khmer and English.
Kind regards,
CCHR
No comments:
Post a Comment