View previous stories
	Calls for Iran to account for Photojournalist"s Death by Reporters without Borders / AFP Iran / Canada   July 11, 2006   Reporters without Borders has called for a proper investigation into the death three years ago of photojournalist Zahra Kazemi while in Iranian custody.   Ms Kazemi, 54, died in July 2003 after spending two weeks in custody in Tehran following her arrest for photographing a demonstration outside the Iranian capital"s Evin prison.   She held dual Canadian-Iranian citizenship.   The press freedom organisation said in a statement there had been no progress in this case since the acquittal of Reza Aghdam Ahmadi, the only person ever to be formally accused over the death, on 16 November 2005.   "The Kazemi family lawyers have run into a wall of silence from the Iranian judicial authorities," it said.   "We support the lawyers" demand for a fair and impartial trial to be finally held, one that would establish once and for all the circumstances in which Kazemi died."   Canada, whose relations with Iran have soured over this case, has suggested Tehran prosecutor Said Mortazavi bears responsibility for the death of Ms Kazemi, who died from a cerebral haemorrhage following beatings.   Tehran has rejected the Canadian claims.   Mr Mortazavi"s participation as a member of the Iranian delegation in a meeting of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva last month prompted United States as well as Canadian protests.   Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper called on the international community to use "all manner of law available" to bring Mr Mortazavi to justice over Ms Kazemi"s death.   "A Canadian citizen was beaten and tortured to death. This has not been properly addressed by the Government of Iran," Mr Harper said.
	Cambodia: UN official urges ‘moral strength’ as Judges sworn in for Khmer Rouge Trial by Nicolas Michel United Nations / IHT / Project Syndicate Cambodia   July 6, 2006   The killing fields. (IHT)   Three decades have passed since the world first learned of the "killing fields" of Cambodia: whole populations driven from cities, mass executions, and countless deaths by starvation, forced labor and disease at the bloody hands of the Khmer Rouge. Yet it was only this week that a UN- Cambodian tribunal was sworn in and began the long task of bringing those most responsible to trial.   The tribunal, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, faces enormous hurdles, not least of which is that the leaders of the Khmer Rouge are either old or dead. Pol Pot died in 1998. Of his top lieutenants, Nuon Chea, Khieu Samphan and Ieng Sary are in bad health. Only two former leaders are in detention, and one of them, Ta Mok, the former military chief of the Khmer Rouge, was hospitalized last Thursday. We can only hope that there will be enough of a trial in the end to give Cambodia''''s survivors some sense of justice done.   The tribunal has a responsibility not only to those survivors but to a world that has yet to learn how to deal with crimes against humanity. The horrified outcry when the crimes of the Khmer Rouge came to light was only repeated later, over Srebrenica, Rwanda, Sierra Leone. Yet the international tribunals set up for these atrocities have been painfully slow, frightfully expensive and sadly inadequate. Slobodan Milosevic died before judgment could be passed by the Yugoslavia tribunal; Charles Taylor, the former president of Liberia, was arrested only in March to face trial before the Sierra Leone court. And another genocide is under way today, in Darfur, in full view of the entire world.   Given this history, it should not be surprising if victims of atrocities come to see international justice as an expensive exercise in allaying Western guilt for failing to act in time. The Cambodia tribunal, with 17 Cambodian judges and 13 from other countries, is set to spend $56.3 million over three years in a country where most people live on less than a dollar a day. Yet that expense will be justified if it can bring culprits to justice as quickly as possible; if it can help Cambodians learn what happened and why; and if it can demonstrate to the world that justice, however delayed, awaits those in power who commit heinous crimes against humanity.   The court - as well as other international tribunals - should be supported by serious efforts to ensure that such atrocities do not happen again. Getting a UN force into Darfur would be a good start.   3 July 2006   Cambodia: UN official urges ‘moral strength’ as Judges sworn in for Khmer Rouge Trial. (UN News)   Welcoming the swearing in today of judges for Cambodia"s long-awaited trial of former Khmer Rouge leaders, accused of horrific crimes, including mass killings, during the 1970s, the United Nations Legal Counsel called on these officials to show the “moral strength” to help create a culture of accountability to replace “the sinister culture of impunity.”   Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs Nicolas Michel, speaking in Phnom Penh, told the international and Cambodian judges and prosecutors that the swearing-in was an “historic landmark” on the road to “justice and sustainable peace,” although much remained to be done..   Mr. Michel thanked Cambodia’s Government for helping set up the Chambers, and Member States, various organizations and the media for their support, but he gave special emphasis in his remarks to ordinary people.   “Your country, my Cambodian friends, has lived tragic moments, moments which can be counted in days, months, and years. Many lost their lives,” he noted. “You are thirsty for peace. You want to move forward together to a better future. Today, in cooperation with your Government, the international community answers your call and offers you its full support.”   Under an agreement signed by the UN and Cambodia, the trial court and a Supreme Court within the Cambodian legal system will investigate those most responsible for crimes and serious violations of Cambodian and international law between 17 April 1975 and 6 January 1979.   The three-year budget for the trials is about $56.3 million, of which $43 million is to be paid by the UN and $13.3 million by the Government of Cambodia.   At last year’s pledging conference to support the UN assistance to the trials, Secretary-General Kofi Annan said that the crimes committed under the Khmer Rouge rule “were of a character and scale that it was still almost impossible to comprehend,” adding that “the victims of those horrific crimes had waited too long for justice.”   July 2006   Judgment in Phnom Penh, by Dina Nay and James A. Goldston. (Project Syndicate)   Three decades after the Khmer Rouge killed a quarter of Cambodia’s seven million people, a court to try the most responsible surviving leaders is set to open its doors.   Under an agreement between the United Nations and Cambodia’s government, 13 foreign judges and prosecutors have now been chosen to serve alongside 17 Cambodian counterparts. This eclectic group of jurists will begin, in the first week of July, an unusual experiment in international justice. Over the next three years, the aptly named Extraordinary Chambers will seek to produce a measure of legal accountability for one of the worst genocides of the twentieth century. Among those likely to be tried are two of Pol Pot’s closest and most powerful cohorts: Nuon Chea, a Khmer Rouge party leader, and Ieng Sary, the former Deputy Prime Minister for Foreign Affairs.   Given how long it has taken to get off the ground – on-again, off-again talks dragged out over nine years – this tribunal’s very existence is a cause for celebration. But the test of the trials will be whether they are – and are seen to be – fact-driven, impartial, and consistent with international standards.   For reasons of history and as a matter of law, both the Cambodian government and the international community share responsibility for making this court a success. To do so, they must address several major challenges.   First, unlike hybrid tribunals in East Timor, Kosovo, and Sierra Leone, international judges are a minority. (A “super-majority” voting mechanism will ensure that the vote of at least one international judge is needed to reach a judgment.) There are good reasons why mixed tribunals should have substantial national components. Nonetheless, this arrangement poses particular challenges in a country where the quality and independence of judicial decision-making have long been questioned.   Second, the length of time that has passed since the crimes – longer than 30 years, in some cases – far exceeds that for any comparable proceeding. Other war crimes courts have taken place in the immediate aftermath of conflict. Cambodia’s long delay complicates the task of preserving evidence, including human memory, that is so essential to proving guilt.   These structural impediments cannot be removed. But they can be partly overcome with intensive training in Cambodian and international law and complex investigative techniques. This must be reinforced by vigorous independent monitoring throughout the process.   Third, the court site is located in a military compound far from downtown Phnom Penh. If ordinary people are to observe this historic event, buses will have to transport them. The proceedings should be broadcast nationwide on radio and television. Civic groups and the court will need to develop creative outreach strategies to target the predominantly rural population to ensure that all Cambodians have the opportunity to understand these proceedings. At the very least, court staff should work with local groups to convene meetings about the trials, and the issues they raise, in communities across the country.   Fourth, in recent months opposition leaders and human rights activists have been subjected to criminal charges for speech critical of the government. Draft legislation seeks to make criminal defamation a permanent fixture, and includes new provisions making it an offense to criticize a court ruling.   Cambodia’s political leaders and donor states should do more to underscore the value of wide-ranging debate about the tribunal and the larger legacy of Cambodia’s civil conflict. Cambodian survivors of the Khmer Rouge recall the daily fear of criticizing that regime; it would be especially tragic if Cambodians did not feel free to express their views of the Extraordinary Chambers. Meaningful public engagement with the court requires an underlying environment that fosters – not punishes – the free expression of ideas.   Fifth, Cambodia has a shortage of highly qualified lawyers, because the legal profession was nearly wiped out by the Khmer Rouge. Yet, contrary to the practice in other international and hybrid war crimes courts, local law permits only Cambodian lawyers to represent the accused. For the sake of fairness and due process, this rule must be changed for the Extraordinary Chambers, so that international lawyers can contribute equally to the defense.   Finally, having generously contributed most of the tribunal’s funds, donor governments cannot just sit back and watch. They can best help the court by coordinating their actions, exercising robust oversight, and helping to identify – and, where necessary, solve – problems as they arise.   In addition, they may have to provide additional resources. The court’s bare bones budget of $56 million over three years does not cover basics such as a safe house for protected witnesses, transcripts of court testimony, or a library. It would help if the United States, which has yet to contribute to the Extraordinary Chambers, were to do so.   The Extraordinary Chambers marks a milestone in Cambodia’s effort to come to terms with an exceptionally violent period in its past. How the court performs matters deeply to the millions of Cambodians scarred by the crimes of the Khmer Rouge. At the same time, this court is the latest manifestation of an enduring worldwide movement – which extends back to Nuremberg – to end impunity for mass atrocities. Its capacity to render justice should be of paramount concern to us all.   (Dina Nay, a survivor of the Khmer Rouge killing fields, is Executive Director, The Khmer Institute of Democracy (KID); James A. Goldston is Executive Director, Open Society Justice Initiative).
	View more stories