Cambodia: Free ‘ADHOC Five’ Rights Defenders
Campaign Against Rights Monitoring Includes Threat to Expel UN Rights Office
Human Rights Watch | 1 December 2016
(New York) – The Cambodian Supreme Court’s decision to refuse
bail to five detained human rights defenders is part of the government’s
persecution of Cambodia’s rights groups, Human Rights Watch said today. On November 30, 2016, the court upheld pretrial detention for four current and one former member
of the Cambodian Human Rights and Development Association (ADHOC), in
violation of their due process rights under international law.
Cambodia’s donors and United Nations bodies should speak out against prosecutions and other actions supported by Prime Minister Hun Sen
and the ruling Cambodian People’s Party (CPP) aimed at intimidating and
suppressing human rights work. These measures, as well as recent
threats to close the Cambodia Office of the UN High Commissioner for
Human Rights (COHCHR), are part of a government campaign to curtail
domestic and international human rights monitoring in Cambodia.
“The Supreme Court showed its political bias in refusing bail for
five human rights defenders criminally charged for doing their jobs in a
way the government didn’t like,” said Brad Adams,
Asia director. “No one should mistake these prosecutions for anything
other than Prime Minister Hun Sen’s effort to undo decades of work by
Cambodian groups and the UN to promote the human rights of all
Cambodians.”
The “ADHOC five” consists of ADHOC staffers Nay Vanda, Ny Sokha, Yi
Soksan, Lim Mony, and former ADHOC staffer Ny Chariya, now a deputy
secretary-general of Cambodia’s National Election Committee. On May 2,
an investigating judge of the Phnom Penh court filed charges of “bribery
of a witness” against those five and Son Saly of COHCHR. Son Saly has
not been arrested because as a UN employee he enjoys immunity from legal
action for the conduct of his duties.
In a speech on May 1, Hun Sen publicly interjected himself into the
cases by stating that those charged in this case should go to jail. He
also said that Son Saly’s immunity as a UN employee was irrelevant,
proclaiming, “Even if there is immunity, jail is a must.” “Bribery of a
witness” is set out under article 548 of Cambodia’s Criminal Code as
“the direct or indirect giving of a gift, offer, promise, or interest to
a witness in order (1) not to testify; (2) to provide false testimony.”
The offense is punishable by five to ten years’ imprisonment. Alleged
accomplices face the same punishment.
The prolonged pretrial detention of the ADHOC five violates the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which
Cambodia is a party. Article 9(3) states, “It shall not be the general
rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody.” The UN
Human Rights Committee, the international expert body that monitors
state compliance with the ICCPR, has stated that “pretrial detention
should be an exception and as short as possible.” Pretrial detention
should not be used as a form of punishment. The Human Rights Committee
has stated that excessive pretrial detention may in itself be a
violation of the rights to liberty and presumption of innocence.
In its bail ruling, the Supreme Court cited article 205 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, saying it was necessary to deny bail to maintain
public order and prevent interference with witnesses and victims.
However, no specific information of the necessity of such prolonged
pretrial detention was provided, and no explanation was given as to why
non-custodial measures were insufficient to ensure their appearance in
court or to prevent any reasonably anticipated interference with the
administration of justice.
“The Supreme Court should be willing to challenge the arbitrary
misuse of power by the authorities, but by simply rubber-stamping
government malfeasance, the court is merely extending the suffering of
the ADHOC five and their families,” Adams said.
Article 12 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders provides
that governments shall take all necessary measures to ensure the
protection for human rights defenders against “any violence, threats,
retaliation, de facto or de jure adverse discrimination, pressure or any
other arbitrary actions” related to their efforts to protect and
promote human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has stated
that the critical test for human rights work worldwide is whether it is
aimed at “acting in support of victims of human rights violations,”
including by providing those who may be victims of human rights
violations with counseling and other assistance.
Human Rights Watch urged Cambodia’s donors and the wider public to participate in the #FreeThe5KH campaign at https://freethe5kh.net/.
In November, the Cambodian government threatened to shut down the UN
human rights office in Phnom Penh by the end of 2016. The office has
been operating in Cambodia since 1994 and, as the UN Human Rights
Council and many UN member states have noted, plays a key role in
promoting and protecting human rights in the country.
“Prime Minister Hun Sen has sent a message through the ruling
party-controlled judiciary and through threats to close the UN human
rights office that no rights advocacy is safe in Cambodia,” Adams said.
“Civil society groups in Cambodia are facing unprecedented attacks. It
is critical that Cambodia’s donors speak loudly and with one voice to
say that this is unacceptable and that there will be consequences if the
attacks don’t end.”
Background
The case of the ADHOC five arose after ADHOC provided human rights advice and assistance to Khom Chandaraty, widely known as Srey Mom. She and her family approached ADHOC for help on March 9, 2016, after she was “invited” for questioning by the Counterterrorism Directorate of the government’s Central Directorate for Security, which is headed by Lt. Gen. Dy Vichea, a member of the CPP Central Committee and Hun Sen’s son-in-law. The summons did not concern any alleged terrorist activity but asked Srey Mom to provide clarifications about a purported surreptitiously-made recording of a conversation between her and Kem Sokha, acting leader of the opposition Cambodia National Rescue Party. The recording supposedly demonstrated that she and Kem Sokha were involved in an extramarital affair. On March 11, when questioned by counterterrorism officers, she denied all allegations. On March 18, she received a second summons, this time from the Phnom Penh court prosecution, to reply to the accusation she had lied to the counterterrorism unit and allegations that her relationship with Kem Sokha was one of prostitution.
Srey Mom continued to seek assistance from ADHOC. According to
records released by the group, she said that the tapes were faked, that
there had been no affair with Kem Sokha, and that she was being
intimidated by the authorities and was suffering livelihood
difficulties. As it routinely does for those approaching as victims of
government abuses, ADHOC provided Srey Mom with a small sum of money for
expenses, including to help her attend court, and assigned her a
lawyer. On April 19, when she appeared with her lawyer before the
prosecution, she reversed her denial of having an affair with Kem Sokha.
On April 22, she issued an open letter alleging that the four ADHOC
staffers and UN employee Son Saly had enticed her to lie to the
authorities by sticking to her original story and suggested that she
should leave Cambodia.
On April 23, the Ministry of Justice, which has a controlling
influence over the Cambodian judiciary, cited Srey Mom’s letter and
“condemned unreservedly the law-violating conduct” of ADHOC and COHCHR,
and called for “the competent authorities” to “take the most vigorous
legal measures” against them. ADHOC publicly denied any wrongdoing and
distributed internal records backing up its contention that it had acted
entirely in accordance with legal and professional standards for human
rights work.
On April 25, the five current and former ADHOC staffers were
summonsed to present themselves for questioning on April 27 and 28 by
the government’s Anti-Corruption Unit (ACU), which has judicial police
authority to investigate allegations of bribing a witness. It is headed
by CPP Central Committee member and long-term Hun Sen confidant Om
Yentieng. On April 28, the ACU placed the five in custody, and on May 1,
it brought them before the Phnom Penh court prosecution. While in ACU
custody, they were not given access to legal counsel.
No comments:
Post a Comment