7 December 2006
In Cambodia, there've been more hurdles
in bringing to trial, those
most responsible for the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge in the
1970's. Judges to the international tribunal last month failed to agree on
internal regulations that would give shape to the UN-backed genocide trials.
Presenter/Interviewer: Liam Cochrane
Speakers: Helen Jarvis,
Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of
Cambodia; Ly Tai Seng, Secretary General of Cambodian Bar Association; Sok
Sam Oeun, head the Cambodian Defenders Project; Suon Visal, formerly elected
president of the Cambodian Bar Association
COCHRANE: It seems there's rarely an easy day at
Cambodia's Khmer
Rouge tribunal.
After years of painstaking negotiations, the
Cambodian Government and
the United Nations are inching towards the establishment of a court to
prosecute leaders of the murderous Khmer Rouge regime. However, last week
saw those involved fail to agree on 110 crucial internal regulations for the
court and also a clash between the Cambodian Bar Association and it's
international counterpart over training for lawyers.
The International Bar Association planned to hold
a course to teach
Cambodian lawyers about international criminal law and fair trial standards.
But days before it was due to begin, the training was cancelled after
protests from the Cambodian side.
In a press release, the International Bar Association
said lawyers
were threatened with repercussions if they joined the training and said the
dispute was part of a wider scheme to obstruct the tribunal.
Ly Tai Seng is the Secretary General of
Cambodian Bar Association. He
denied there'd been any threats made and said the clash was a result of the
international bar Association not asking permission for the training.
SENG: In
approve the training program and the agenda for training of Cambodian
lawyers. We do not mean that their training, the contents of their training
are not in compliance with Cambodian law, we appreciate the content and we
fully agree that the training is good, but the procedure required under the
law has not been fulfilled.
COCHRANE: This seemingly bureaucratic problem
ended with something of
a face-off between the two parties and the International Bar Association
called off the training session.
At the heart of the issue is ambiguity about how
the tribunal will
operate within the structure of the Cambodian court system. In particular,
the Cambodian Bar Association says there is no legal basis for the Defense
Support Unit which is expected to provide legal representation for any of
the accused who can't afford a private lawyer.
The law passed in 2001 to establish the tribunal
didn't explain the
role of the Defense Support Unit, although it did mention the need for fair
trials by international standards.
Sok Sam Oeun is the head the Cambodian Defenders
Project, the
country's main provider of legal aid.
OEUN: Right now the misunderstand like this,
they think that look like
the Defense Unit come to create another bar and the lawyer who want to
represent the Khmer Rouge accuse must register with the Defense Unit.
COCHRANE: But some tribunal observers see the
clash as an early test
of the role of international bodies in the Khmer Rouge tribunal. The court
is unique in that it combines Cambodian judges and those hand-picked by the
UN. The success of the tribunal depends not only of the meshing of
international and local law, but also of judges, co-prosecutors and defense
lawyers.
Suon Visal was formerly elected president of the
Cambodian Bar
Association and has written a thesis on the Khmer Rouge Tribunal. He
believes the recent clash was a misunderstanding but warns that Cambodian
lawyers do need the sort of training offered by the International Bar
Association to ensure a fair trial.
VISAL: But, you know if the UN tries to proceed
based on this way, do
not consider the fair trial principle, why the United Nations come? For what
purpose? It's a failure of the United Nations also, for me I don't want to
see that situation.
COCHRANE: The independence of the Khmer Rouge
tribunal remains a hot
topic for speculation, but with proceedings set to begin in mid-2007, the
real evidence is yet to come.
Helen Jarvis, who has spent seven years trying
to make this tribunal a
reality, says the clash between the two bar associations is not likely to
derail the court, and—like the failure to pass the internal regulations -
was just another rough patch in a long struggle for justice.
JARVIS: Well I'd say we've had a number of sticky
points along the way
and I've been involved in this issue for seven years, seven and a half years
now through the negotiations and there've been a number of points at which
people have felt how on earth can they be reconciled but and we've managed
to do so—with good will on both sides. I don't see this as bigger than
other things we have overcome.
Copyright 2006
ABC News