CIVIL RESISTANCE
My TREASON & INCITEMENT MASS TRIAL (Initial Page on Trial Matters) TUESDAY, 14 JUNE 2022 VERDICT ANNOUNCEMENT Court Statement: Concluding Remarks ការការពារ ផ្លូវច្បាប់ របស់ខ្ញុំ [ ... ] |
CIVIC EDUCATION
|
Cambodia Daily, 26 Sept. 2007)
NOTE: The ECCC came into operation in mid-2006. When Theary Seng filed the first application in Sept. 2007, the ECCC has yet to establish the Victims Unit and the Victims/Civil Party Application Form. She wrote up her own complaint and personally went to the ECCC and filed with the clerk at the Office of the Co-Investigation Judges. It would take until the beginning of 2008 for the Victims Unit to be established and the Application Form to be available for the first time, with revisions and changes since then.
Video of Civil Party Theary Seng's direct arguments in court at the Nuon Chea hearing on 8 Feb. 2008. Part I
Part II
TRANSCRIPTS of her arguments. After her 20 minute statement, Theary handed a copy of Understanding Trauma in Cambodia Handbook to Mr. Nuon Chea.
On February 8, Theary Seng, who is quickly becoming the poster child for the genocide that ravaged Cambodia in the late 1970s, stood to address a man she believes was responsible for the deaths of her parents and 1.7 million other Cambodians: Nuon Chea, Pol Pot's right-hand man and most trusted deputy, who is charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity. "For us, the graveyard was our playground," she said. (excerpt from International Justice Tribune, above)
First Khmer Rouge victim testifies in ECCC hearing for former second-in-command
From ECCC archive - ENGLISH / KHMER [ NOTE: The first and only dissenting opinion - which happens to be obviously and legally correct, then and in hindsight - in the ECCC thus far (mid-June 2010) came from Australian Judge Rowan Downing in defense of civil party Theary Seng's right to speak in person - to the chagrin (as lawyers have no shame) of several foreign legal interns/fellows/consultants purporting to speak on behalf of Khmer victims (as several months in the country give that right!) in their feverish rush with ready drafted op-ed pieces for their 5-minute of fame with the local press and international email list serve, e.g. one Sarah Thomas. ]
Lawyers Claim Ieng Sary "Agent of Peace" The Phnom Penh Post, 2 July 2008 Quoting civil party Theary Seng Dissenting Opinion in Pre-Trial Chamber 3 July 2008 Decision (given orally on July 1 at hearing) on Civil Party's Request to Address the Court in Person which the PTC had to do an about-face, in opening the door for unrepresented civil parties to address the Chamber in person, but waiting till 2 months later to correct its position in its 29 Aug. 2008 decision (2nd one below), and disingenuously responding to Theary Seng's 2 July 2008 incorrectly formatted one-page letter (normally not accepted by ECCC) (immediately below) and completely by-passed/ignored the correctly formatted and comprehensively argued 17 July 2008 "Application for Declarative Relief for Civil Party to Speak in Person, Not for Re-hearing" (also, above) a legal sleight-of-hand to avoid embarrassment of their earlier prima facie incorrect ruling.
A Pre-Trial Chamber decision which opens the door for unrepresented civil parties' right to address the chamber in person, 29 August 2008
The Lead Co-Lawyers Scheme runs contrary to the principle, the basic definition of "party", a legal violation and a thus a nonsensical farce, DIS-EMPOWERING VICTIMS in its EXPLOITATION.
Excerpts from Theary Seng's Application for Declarative Relief (above), July 2008: "Once the defense and prosecution have spent time presenting their case in the manner of their choosing, it flows logically that the Civil Party should be able to do the same. Parties can object and the Court reserves the right to curtail any irrelevant or repetitive submissions regardless of who is speaking. Given the Court's ability to manage the proceedings, it should not matter whether a lawyer or a Civil Party speaks during the allocated time."
"It may also help the Court to consider controlling the number of speaking representatives from each party. Given that the defense and the prosecution have each have two attorneys present in the courtroom, perhaps the Civil Parties, no matter how many there are, should also be limited to two speaking representatives on any given day. The Civil Parties would then decide internally how and who would use the allocated speaking time, helping to mainstream the Civil Parties' voice."
"The Civil Party's voice resonates differently than that of her lawyer."
. . .
ILLEGAL SCHEME to have Lead Co-Lawyers: Cambodian Ang Pich and UN Elisabeth Simmoneau-Fort INCOMPETENT, INEXPERIENCED NEOPHYTES "I decided to withdraw completely because I do not have faith in the court as a whole, and I do not have faith in the lead [civil party] co-lawyers. "One is an incompetent neophyte with no international background who would not allow me - as a victim - to speak with her, and the other is the same." [Theary C. Seng] Pich Ang told the Post, adding that he and his international counterpart, Elisabeth Simonneau Fort, had personally met "zero" of the victims in Case 002. Simonneau Fort agreed. "We can only meet civil parties with their lawyer, who is their intermediary; we cannot be in contact with civil parties directly." - The Phnom Penh Post's KRT Critic Offers 'Poetic Justice' 16 Nov. 2011
. . .
Open Letter to Reporters and Commentators "Civil Party" vs. "Witness" Distinction Theary C. Seng Founding President Association of Khmer Rouge Victims in Cambodia 13 Jan. 2012
All to say, Cambodian victims would do well without these lawyers' presence as this would peel away some layers of the confusion, complexity and deceit surrounding the KRT. The access and quality of victim participation would not change, as it is as a “witness” and not “civil party” that s/he is participating directly, meaningfully, currently in the KRT.
Remember, Mr. Vann Nath participated as a “witness” and not a “civil party; he never applied and became a “civil party”.
. . .
Phnom Penh Post, 24 Nov. 2011 Civil party lawyers voiced objections to Ieng Sary’s refusal to give testimony.
“If he chooses not to respond, can we presume he has admitted his guilt already?” Cambodian civil party lawyer Pich Ang asked the court.
Ieng Sary’s international defence counsel slammed the civil party lawyers for their comments.
“These are fair trial rights,” Karnavas said. “I don’t know how they intend to represent their clients if they stand up and misrepresent the law as they do now.” . . . . .
Closing Order of Case 002 of ECCC Co-Investigating Judges against "Senior Khmer Rouge Leaders": Nuon Chea, Khieu Samphan, Ieng Sary, Ieng Thirith (15 Sept. 2010). In particular, see "Wat Tlork" and the requested link to "Bung Rei" (or, Boeung Rai), the 2 detention centers where I was detained and lost my mom to the madness. See Victims Association for more on Boeung Rai Detention Center (or just continue scrolling down). Closing Order of Case 002 in KHMER (no footnotes) . . . Seven Candidates for Prosecution: Accountability for the Crimes of the Khmer Rouge (2001) By Stephen Heder and Brian D. Tittemore
Liberal Legal Norms Meet Collective Criminality (Michigan Law Review, John D. Ciorciari)
Negotiating History of the ECCC's Personal Jurisdiction US 1st War Crimes Ambassador Prof. David Scheffer, 22 May 2011
A Review of the Negotiations Leading to the Establishment of the Personal Jurisdiction of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia By Steve Heder, 1 August 2011
"A sobering exploration of the hypocrisy and double standards that shape the laws of war. Maguire reveals the conflict between American ideology and American imperialism, the Faustian compromises made by our leaders during their elusive quest for justice."—Iris Chang, author of The Rape of Nanking
|
|
