By M.E. Dodge
Impunity Watch Reporter, Asia

PHNOM PEHN, Cambodia — Amidst the trial of Khmer Rouge prison commander, Comrade Duch,the difficulty of such an undertaking in a country with a reputation for corruption and a compromised judiciary is apparent.  

Kang Kek Ieu, referred to as Kaing Guek Eav in tribunal filings, but better known by countrymen as, Comrade Duch, was responsible for running ehe infamous prison. At the site, Duch oversaw 15,000 supposed enemies of the revolution. It was at the camp where the inmates were tortured before being executed in the nearby “killing fields.”

At trial, Duch expressed  enthusiasm for the job at the notorious S-21 prison, and argued that he and his family would have been killed had he not carried out his superiors’ orders.

For nine months, French lawyer Francois Roux crafted a defense strategy of admission and apology that implied the team would seek a lenient sentence. But in the trial’s final moments, Duch and his Cambodian lawyer, Kar Savuth, broke with this posture, disputing the legitimacy of the court and calling for Duch’s immediate release. Even though the tribunal promised a more inclusive approach than its counterparts at the International Criminal Court at The Hague, instead, the trial ended with strike among Cambodian and foreign defense counsels. The disagreement signifies the difficulty and challenges of carrying out international standards of justice, especially in a country with a reputation for corruption and a deeply compromised legal system.

Over the last two years, claims of governmental interference and kickbacks have underscored the disadvantages of holding the tribunal in Cambodia. The turbulent negotiations in bringing about former Khmer Rouge leaders to justice began in 1997. By 2003, former-U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said the extreme politicization of Cambodia’s judiciary required that the tribunal be held outside the Cambodian system. After much deliberation, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia was developed as a local tribunal, namely running under local laws, with the United Nations playing the role of a minor partner. After implementing this model, it is said that, “No one in the U.N. or elsewhere will ever copy the Cambodian model,” said Brad Adams, Asia head of Human Rights Watch. “It’s the lowest standard the United Nations has been willing to go.”  
  
 

For more information, please see:

The Boston Globe – Cambodia and its War Tribunal – December 6, 2009 

Los Angeles Times – Cambodia’s first war crimes trial marred by flaws – December 6, 2009

KI Media – KR Tribunal to instigate civil war in Cambodia?”: CWCI – December 6, 2009

By Michael E. Sanchez
Impunity Watch Reporter, Asia 

SHARIFF AGUAK, Philippines- Civil rights groups in the Philippines have filed a legal challenge against the government’s imposing of martial law in the southern province of Maguindanao.  Late Friday Gloria Arroyo, the Philippines’ president declared military rule, citing a breakdown of order in the province. 

The Philippine armed forces and police say they are pursuing at least 3,000 men loyal to the Ampatuan clan.  The government has accused the clan of killing 57 people last week and inciting rebellion.

There has been criticism from pro-democracy groups, saying that imposing military rule is an overreaction by the government, setting a dangerous precedent which goes against the constitution.  This is the first time in 30 years that martial law has been imposed anywhere in the Philippines since late dictator Ferdinand Marcos declared it nationwide in the late 1970’s.

Harry Roque, a human rights lawyer said the legal challenge “questioned the constitutionality of the presidents declaration”.  Roque said the constitution, which was drafted after the Marcos dictatorship, allows for a declaration of martial law only “when there is a foreign invasion or when there is an actual taking up of arms for the purpose of overthrowing the Philippine government”.  However the situation in Maguindanao, according to Roque, was one of lawlessness, and did not fit into the constitutional requirements for imposing martial law.  He said “The task at hand now is to effectively investigate and prosecute those behind this dastardly act, rather than declare martial law”.

President Arroyo’s critics have also criticized the declaration of rebellion because it politicizes the crimes and allows suspects to be granted bail and presidential amnesty.  The security forces however, say that martial law has allowed them the freedom to move against the Ampatuan clan.  Officials have claimed that a series of raids have uncovered a vast cache of weapons and ammunition stored by Ampatuan supporters.  Commanders have also stated that the Ampatuan followers, numbering up to 4,000, are believed to be heavily armed and capable of carrying out bombing, arson attacks and abductions.

But many Filipinos are wary about the methods being used to do what should have been done long ago, according to Rachel Harvey, BBC’s South East Asia correspondent.

Some critics of the President say she may move to place the entire country under martial law in a bid to hold on to power after her term ends next year.

For information, please see:

BBC News- Philippine Forces Target 3,000 Clan Rebels – 7 December 2009

Aljazeera.net- Philippines Martial Law Challenged– 7 December 2009

Associated Press- Philippine Massacre Suspects Face Rebellion Raps-7 December 2009