Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Duch Case: The ECCC Supreme Court Chamber’s Review of Case 001

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia

Part of the book series: International Criminal Justice Series ((ICJS,volume 6))

Abstract

The Supreme Court Chamber (SCC) closed Case 001, the case of Kaing Guek Eav alias “Duch”, the former chairman of S-21 (Tuol Sleng), when it issued its first Judgment. The SCC addressed the grounds of appeal relevant to his guilt for crimes against humanity and war crimes, amended the sentence imposed from 30 years to a life-long prison term and confirmed the Trial Chamber’s approach to reparations. The SCC stressed that the principle of legality is essential to the legitimacy of the ECCC that delivers judgment some 35 years after the facts. The SCC assumed a scope of review that arguably exceeded that applied by other international appellate chambers. In addition, the SCC failed to convincingly establish that the ECCC is a part of the Cambodian legal system, with the consequence of not granting Kaing Guek Eav compensation for his illegal detention in the Cambodian Military Prison. Last but not least, it refrained from defining the concept of “most responsible person” for the crimes committed in that it interpreted this phrase, not as a personal jurisdiction requirement, but as a policy guideline for the Co-Investigating Judges.

The author is Legal Officer in the Appeals Division of the ICC. The views expressed are those of the author and cannot be attributed to the ICC or any other organisation to which the author is or was attached. Decisions mentioned in this article are those of Case File 001/18-07-2007 (KAING Guek Eav), if not indicated otherwise.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The Co-Prosecutors (see Article 16 ECCC Law) have to submit an Introductory Submission to the Co-Investigating Judges (see Article 23new ECCC Law) that starts the judicial investigation into the facts as delineated by the Co-Prosecutors, see ECCC IR Rules 53, 54.

  2. 2.

    The Summary of the Duch Appeal Judgment was read out on 3 February 2012 (Summary), available at http://www.eccc.gov.kh/sites/default/files/articles/03022012Summary-Eng.pdf (visited 15 June 2015); the written judgment was published in Khmer and English on 9 April 2012, see Judgment, Kaing Guek Eav (Duch) (001/18-07-2007-ECCC-F28), Supreme Court Chamber, 3 February 2012 (hereafter Duch Appeal Judgment).

  3. 3.

    Judgment, Kaing Guek Eav (Duch) (001/18-07-2007-ECCC-E188), Trial Chamber, 26 July 2010 (hereafter Duch Trial Judgment); the two crimes are laid down respectively in Arts 5 and 6 ECCC Law.

  4. 4.

    See Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, at 320–321.

  5. 5.

    Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, at 320–321; Duch Trial Judgment, supra note 3, §§ 679–680.

  6. 6.

    Duch Trial Judgment, supra note 3.

  7. 7.

    Duch Trial Judgment, supra note 3, §§ 17–25.

  8. 8.

    The Judge from New Zealand dissented on the question whether Kaing Guek Eav had prosecutorial intent, see Duch Trial Judgment, supra note 3, §§ 397–399.

  9. 9.

    Duch Trial Judgment, supra note 3, §§ 59–399, 559–568, 677.

  10. 10.

    Duch Trial Judgment, supra note 3, §§ 400–469, 677.

  11. 11.

    Duch Trial Judgment, supra note 3, §§ 470–558; at §§ 516, 517; the systemic joint criminal enterprise is often described as the second form of joint criminal enterprise.

  12. 12.

    The French Judge dissented; see Duch Trial Judgment, supra note 3, Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Jean-Marc Lavergne on Sentence, 26 July 2010.

  13. 13.

    Duch Trial Judgment, supra note 3, §§ 569–634.

  14. 14.

    Duch Trial Judgment, supra note 3, §§ 635–675.

  15. 15.

    Duch Trial Judgment, supra note 3, §§ 645, 650, 682.

  16. 16.

    Duch Trial Judgment, supra note 3, §§ 667, 683.

  17. 17.

    Co-Prosecutors’ Notice of Appeal against the Judgment of the Trial Chamber in the Case of KAING Guek Eav alias Duch, Kaing Guek Eav (Duch) (001/18-07-2007-ECCC-E188/2), Office of the Co-Prosecutors, 16 August 2010; Co-Prosecutors’ appeal against the judgment of the Trial Chamber in the Case of Kaing Guek Eav alias Duch, Kaing Guek Eav (Duch) (001/18-07-2007-ECCC-F10), Office of the Co-Prosecutors, 13 October 2010 (Co-Prosecutors’ Appeal).

  18. 18.

    Notice of Appeal by the Co-Lawyers for KAING Guek Eav Alias Duch against the Trial Chamber Judgment of 26 July 2010, Kaing Guek Eav (Duch) (001/18-07-2007-ECCC/TC-E188/8), Kaing Guek Eav Defence, 24 August 2010; Appeal Brief by the Co-Lawyers for KAING Guek Eav alias ‘Duch’ against the Trial Chamber Judgment of 26 July 2010, Kaing Guek Eav (Duch) (001/18-07-2007-ECCC-F14), Kaing Guek Eav Defence, 18 November 2010. See also Co-Prosecutors’ Response to the Appeal Brief by the Co-Lawyers for KAING Guek Eav alias “Duch” against the Trial Chamber Judgment of 26 July 2010, Kaing Guek Eav (Duch) (001/18-07-2007-ECCC-F14/4), Office of the Co-Prosecutors, 20 December 2010; Reply by the Co-Lawyers for KAING Guek Eav alias “Duch” to the Co-Prosecutors’ Response of 20 December 2010, Kaing Guek Eav (Duch) (001/18-07-2007-ECCC-F14/4/2), Kaing Guek Eav Defence, 14 January 2011.

  19. 19.

    The Co-Prosecutors refrained from stipulating an exact number of years of imprisonment, see Co-Prosecutors’ Appeal supra note 18, at 65 that reads: ‘(c) Revise the sentence imposed by the Trial Chamber to a sentence of life imprisonment; (d) Order that this sentence of life imprisonment be reduced to a term of forty-five years to provide an appropriate remedy for the Respondent’s unlawful pre-ECCC detention; (e) Order that a further reduction be made as appropriate for the very limited mitigating circumstances obtaining in the circumstances of this case’.

  20. 20.

    Notification of Assignment of Co-Lawyer, Kaing Guek Eav (Duch) (001/18-07-2007-ECCC-E189), Trial Chamber, 6 August 2010; this choice might have been due to the fact that the national and international Co-Lawyers of Kaing Guek Eav pleaded differently at the Closing Statements (ECCC IR Rule 94); see Transcript, Kaing Guek Eav (Duch) (001/18-07-2007-ECCC-E1/82.1), 27 November 2009, at 60–62.

  21. 21.

    See Transcript of Appeal Proceedings, Kaing Guek Eav (Duch) (001/18-07-2007-ECCC-F1/3.2), 29 March 2011, at 29, showing that Kaing Guek Eav neither allowed his lawyers to file a response to the Co-Prosecutors’ Appeal (supra note 19) nor was willing (in principle) to answer orally to legal arguments.

  22. 22.

    Ibid.; Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, §§ 358, 359.

  23. 23.

    Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, Annex 1, §§ 20–23.

  24. 24.

    Summary, supra note 2, § 8; see also Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, § 15.

  25. 25.

    Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, §§ 337–338, 347.

  26. 26.

    Staker and Eckelmans (2015), at 28–31.

  27. 27.

    Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, § 42.

  28. 28.

    Before that point in time, the Supreme Court Chamber had to deal exclusively with immediate appeals arising from Case File 002/19-09-2007-ECCC-TC/SC: Decision on Immediate Appeals By NUON Chea and IENG Thirith on Urgent Applications for Immediate Release, (E50/2/1/4), 3 June 2011; Decision on Immediate Appeal by Khieu Samphan on Application for Release, (E50/3/1/4), 6 June 2011; Decision on Immediate Appeal Against the Trial Chamber’s Order to Release the Accused IENG Thirith, (E138/1/7), 13 December 2011; Summary of the Reasons for the Decision on Immediate Appeal by NUON Chea Against the Trial Chamber’s Decision on Fairness of Judicial Investigation, (E/116/1/6), 30 January 2012; Decision on Ieng Sary`s Appeal against the Trial Chamber`s Decision on Motions for Disqualification, (E137/5/1/3), 17 April 2012.

  29. 29.

    Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, at 320; § 81 (personal jurisdiction); § 336 (cumulative convictions), § 383 (sentencing).

  30. 30.

    Emphasis added. See also Arts 20new (for the Co-Prosecutors), 23new (for the Co-Investigating Judges and the Pre-Trial Chamber) and 33new ECCC Law (for the Trial and Supreme Court Chambers).

  31. 31.

    Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, §§ 13, 354 (sui generis appellate system); 348 (ECCC Law is ‘lex specialis’ for sentencing); 641 (Reparations); see also Trial Judgment, supra note 3, §§ 574–578 (sentencing).

  32. 32.

    The ECCC Judges in plenary adopted in 2007 the ECCC Internal Rules, last revision on 12 August 2011 (Revision 8) (ECCC IR).

  33. 33.

    Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, § 97.

  34. 34.

    See Staker and Eckelmans 2015, at 36–37, 70–71.

  35. 35.

    The Co-Prosecutors’ (brief) third ground of appeal concerned enslavement as a crime against humanity, while rape and persecution were raised even more cursorily in the second ground of appeal relevant to cumulative convictions.

  36. 36.

    Staker and Eckelmans 2015, at 70–75.

  37. 37.

    Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, § 14.

  38. 38.

    Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, § 15.

  39. 39.

    E.g. in Germany, the appellants do not need to substantiate an error of law if it concerns the material law (‘Sachruege’); see Germany Strafprozeßordnung, § 344 and the court usually applies a wide scope of review in that regard.

  40. 40.

    Prosecutor v. Akayesu, No. ICTR-96-4-A, Judgment, ICTR Appeals Chamber, 1 June 2001, §§ 23–24; but also Kanyarukiga v. The Prosecutor, No. ICTR-02-78-A, Judgment, ICTR Appeals Chamber, 8 May 2012, §§ 264, 267; Prosecutor v. Kupreškić et al. No. IT-95-16-A, Judgment, ICTY Appeals Chamber, 23 October 2001, § 470; however, it still belongs to its standard of review in recent judgments, see: Prosecutor v. Popović et al. No. IT-05-88-A, Judgment, ICTY Appeals Chamber, 30 January 2015, § 16; see also Prosecutor v. Tadić, No. IT-94-1-A, Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 15 July 1999, §§ 241, 247, 281; note that the MICT made no mention of it, Prosecutor v. Ngirabatware, No. MICT-12-29-A, Judgment, MICT Appeals Chamber, 18 December 2014, §§ 6–12.

  41. 41.

    Prosecutor v. Erdemović, IT-96-22-A, Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 7 October 1997, § 16, available at https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/f49012/ (visited 15 June 2015); see also Staker and Eckelmans 2015, at 70–71.

  42. 42.

    Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, §§ 97, 159.

  43. 43.

    Article 1 ECCC Agreement and Arts 1 and 2 ECCC Law clarify that the ECCC’s jurisdiction is limited to the period 17 April 1975 to 6 January 1979.

  44. 44.

    See Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, §§ 145–157 (enslavement), 260 (persecution).

  45. 45.

    Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, § 93.

  46. 46.

    See the work on the International Law Commission on this subject, in particular: First report on formation and evidence of customary international law, Michael Wood, Special Rapporteur, A/CN.4/663, at 27–41; see also in this context Formation and evidence in customary international law, Elements in the previous work of the International Law Commission that could be particularly relevant to the topic, Memorandum by the Secretariat, ILC A/CN.4/659 on the elements of state practice and opinio juris.

  47. 47.

    Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, §§ 153; see also Prosecutor v. Kunarac et al., Case No. IT-06-23&IT-96-23/1-A, Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 12 June 2002, §§ 117, 118.

  48. 48.

    Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, § 158.

  49. 49.

    Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, § 157.

  50. 50.

    Prosecutor v. Kunarac et al., Case No. IT-06-23&IT-96-23/1-A, Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 12 June 2002, §§ 117–121.

  51. 51.

    Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, § 176.

  52. 52.

    Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, §§ 181–182.

  53. 53.

    Decision on Appeals by Nuon Chea and Ieng Thirith against the Closing Order, Nuon Chea and others (002/19-09-2007-ECCC-D427/2/15), Pre-Trial Chamber, 15 February 2011, §§ 149–154.

  54. 54.

    Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, § 196.

  55. 55.

    Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, §§ 198–205.

  56. 56.

    Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, §§ 277, 278, 281–284.

  57. 57.

    Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, § 336.

  58. 58.

    Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, §§ 286, 289.

  59. 59.

    Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, § 290 ‘whether the Trial Chamber was correct in resorting to rules established in ad hoc jurisprudence as opposed to primary sources of international law’, §§ 298–300, 305.

  60. 60.

    Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, § 93.

  61. 61.

    Ibid.

  62. 62.

    Decision on the Appeals Against the Co-Investigative Judges Order on Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE), Nuon Chea and others (002/19-09-2007-ECCC-D97/15/9), Pre-Trial Chamber, 20 May 2010; Decision on the Applicability of Joint Criminal Enterprise, Nuon Chea and others (002/19-09-2007-ECCC-E100/6), Trial Chamber, 12 September 2011.

  63. 63.

    Agreement between the United Nations and The Royal Government of Cambodia Concerning the Prosecution under Cambodian Law of Crimes committed during the Period of Democratic Kampuchea, signed 6 June 2003, entered into force on 19 October 2004 (Agreement).

  64. 64.

    Emphasis added.

  65. 65.

    Defence Appeal, supra note 18.

  66. 66.

    Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, §§ 60, 61; the ‘Khmer Rouge’ are members of the Communist Party of Kampuchea that reigned Democratic Kampuchea in the period over which the ECCC have jurisdiction.

  67. 67.

    Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, §§ 62–79.

  68. 68.

    Morrison 2009, at 599.

  69. 69.

    Judgment, Prosecutor v. Brima, Kamara, Kanu (Case SCSL-2004-16-A), Appeals Chamber, §§ 278–284.

  70. 70.

    The Duch Appeal Judgment addressed more issues relevant to personal jurisdiction, such as when jurisdictional challenges can (exceptionally) be raised, which are, however, without relevance to future proceedings due to the main finding of the Supreme Court Chamber.

  71. 71.

    See Internal Rules 74(3)(a) (jurisdictional appeal to Pre-Trial Chamber), 89(1)(a) (preliminary objection to Trial Chamber on jurisdiction); compare to Judgment, Nuon Chea and others (002/19-09-2007/ECCC-E313) Trial Chamber, 7 August 2014, §§ 12–15.

  72. 72.

    See Internal Rules 71, 72; Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, § 65; if the Pre-Trial Chamber does not find the required super-majority on the matter the Co-Investigating Judges (or Co-Prosecutors) disagree on, the investigation and prosecution will proceed (see Article 23new ECCC Law).

  73. 73.

    See Decision on personal jurisdiction and investigative policy regarding suspect (003/07-09-2009-ECCC-D48 and D49), Co-Investigating Judge, 2 May 2012, in which the international Reserve Co-Investigating Judge (alone) determined that two suspects are falling within the category of ‘the most responsible’ persons and should be subject of an investigation. see also on Case 003: http://www.eccc.gov.kh/en/case/topic/286 (visited 15 June 2015).

  74. 74.

    Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, §§ 342–351. With respect to the legal basis for applicable sentencing principles, the Supreme Court Chamber explained that a specific provision of Cambodian law even prohibits the ECCC from applying sentencing principles laid down in the 2009 Criminal Code (Articles 668(2) and (3)) provides: ‘In the event of conflict between the criminal legislation and criminal provisions and the provisions of this Code, the provisions of Book I (General Provisions) of this Code shall prevail. (3) The provisions of para 668(2) above shall not be applicable to special criminal legislation.’).

  75. 75.

    Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, §§ 354, 363–383.

  76. 76.

    Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, § 363–373.

  77. 77.

    Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, §§ 380–382.

  78. 78.

    Staker and Eckelmans 2015, at 64–68.

  79. 79.

    Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, § 372.

  80. 80.

    Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, §§ 389–399; Duch Trial Judgment, supra note 3, §§ 623–627. Both Chambers decided that the period of illegal detention needed to be deducted from the finally imposed sentence. The issue was whether an additional effective remedy should be in place as compensation for illegal detention.

  81. 81.

    See Decision on Request for Release, Kaing Guek Eav (Duch) (001/18-07-2007/ECCC-E39/5), Trial Chamber, 15 June 2009, §§ 10–13, see also Decision on IENG Sary's Application to Disqualify Judge NIL Nonn and Related Requests, Nuon Chea and others (002/19-09-2007/ECCC-E5/3), Trial Chamber, 28 January 2011, § 14; see also Ruling on Defence Request for Redaction of Some Parts of Co-Prosecutor’s Response to Appeal Brief, Kaing Guek Eav (Duch) (001/18-07/2007-ECCC-C5/46), Pre-Trial Chamber, 6 December 2007, §§ 18, 19.

  82. 82.

    Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, §§ 392–398.

  83. 83.

    Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, Partially dissenting joint opinion, 325, § 6.

  84. 84.

    Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, Partially dissenting joint opinion, §§ 8–20.

  85. 85.

    Decision on the Request for Release (001/18-07-2007-ECCC/TC-E39/5), 15 June 2009, 15, where it was held: ‘Declares that the Accused, under international law and the law of the Kingdom of Cambodia, is entitled to a remedy for the time spent in detention under the authority of the Military Court and the violation of his rights; […] Reserves the question of the nature and extent of the additional remedy in consequence of the violation of his rights to the Chamber’s determination of sentence, if applicable.’ (emphasis added).

  86. 86.

    See Internal Rule 104 (4).

  87. 87.

    See on the legitimacy of the ECCC Internal Rules: Partially Dissenting Opinion of Judge Noguchi, Decision on Immediate Appeal by KHIEU Samphan on Application for Release, Nuon Chea and others (002/19–09–2007/ECCC–E50/3/1/4.1), 23 June 2011, § 6; Decision on NUON Chea’s Preliminary Objection alleging the unconstitutional character of the ECCC Internal Rules, Nuon Chea and others (002/19–09–2007/ECCC-E51/14), Trial Chamber, 8 August 2011; Decision on NUON Chea’s Appeal Against Order Refusing Request for Annulment, Nuon Chea and others (002/19–09–2007/ECCC-D55/1/8), 26 August 2008, § 14; see also Decision on IENG Sary’s Appeal Against the Closing Order, Nuon Chea and others (002/19–09–2007/ECCC-D427/1/30), Pre-Trial Chamber, 11 April 2011, §§ 215–221.

  88. 88.

    Special Tribunal for Lebanon, Decision on Appeal of Pre-trial Judge’s Order Regarding Jurisdiction and Standing, Appeals Chamber, 10 November 2010 (CH/AC/2010/02), § 41, explaining that international courts (such as the Special Tribunal for Lebanon) are not part of a ‘judicial system’ but are ‘self-contained units’.

  89. 89.

    Contrary to the Duch Appeal Judgment (supra note 2, § 391), Article 9(5) read with Article 2(3)(a) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) should be held applicable in Cambodia pursuant to Article 31 Constitution of the Kingdom of Cambodia (1993). The application of this provision would provide Cambodians with an effective right to compensation for illegal detention.

  90. 90.

    See supra note 78.

  91. 91.

    See Eckelmans 2012, at 470.

  92. 92.

    See Internal Rule 104 (4).

  93. 93.

    Internal Rule 105 (1) (c) (Revision 5) reads: ‘The Civil Parties may appeal the decision on reparations. Where the Co-Prosecutors have appealed, the Civil Parties may appeal the verdict. They may not appeal the sentence.’; Decision on Characterisation of Group 1—Civil Party Co-Lawyers’ Immediate Appeal of Civil Party Status Determinations in the Trial Judgment, Kaing Guek Eav (Duch) (001/18-07-2007/ECCC-F8/1), Supreme Court Chamber, 30 September 2010; Group 1—Civil Parties’ Co-Lawyers’ Immediate Appeal of Civil Party Status Determinations from the Final Judgment, Kaing Guek Eav (Duch) (001/18-07-2007/ECCC-F8), Civil Parties, 16 September 2010; Notice of Appeal of Co-Lawyers for Civil Parties (Group 2), Kaing Guek Eav (Duch) (001/18-07-2007/ECCC-E188/6), Civil Parties, 24 August 2010; Appeal Against Rejection of Civil Party Applicants in the Judgment—Co-Lawyers for Civil Parties—Group 2, Kaing Guek Eav (Duch) (001/18-07-2007/ECCC-F11), Civil Parties, 22 October 2010; Notice of Appeal by the Co-Lawyers for Civil Party Group 3, Kaing Guek Eav (Duch) (001/18-07-2007/ECCC-E188/4), Civil Parties, 20 August 2010; Appeal of the Co-Lawyers for the Group 3 Civil Parties against the Judgment of 26 July 2010, Kaing Guek Eav (Duch) (001/18-07-2007/ECCC-F9), Civil Parties, 6 October 2010; Supplemental Submissions Concerning Reparations, Kaing Guek Eav (Duch) (001/18-07-2007/ECCC-F25), Civil Parties, 25 March 2011.

  94. 94.

    Decision on Characterisation of Group 1—Civil Party Co-Lawyers’ Immediate Appeal of Civil Party Status Determinations in the Trial Judgment, Kaing Guek Eav (Duch) (001/18-07-2007/ECCC-F8/1), Supreme Court Chamber, 30 September 2010.

  95. 95.

    Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, §§ 493, 501.

  96. 96.

    Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, §§ 510–534.

  97. 97.

    Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, §§ 535–629.

  98. 98.

    Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, §§ 642–644; see on the history, Boyle 2006, at 307–313; see also Articles 13 and 14 Code of Criminal Procedure (2007).

  99. 99.

    Internal Rule 23(11) (Revisions 1–4) established that, ‘the Chambers may award only collective and moral reparations to Civil Parties’ (see ECCC IR Rule 23(1)(b) (Revisions 5–8); Article 14 Code of Criminal Procedure (2007) provides that an ‘injury can be compensated by paying damages, by giving back to the victim the property that has been lost or by restoring damages or destroyed property to its original state’.

  100. 100.

    Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, §§ 476–501, 511–534 (civil parties), 641, 645–716 (reparations).

  101. 101.

    See § 685 on the specificity of reparation requests. The Supreme Court Chamber held that rejected civil parties were allowed to provide additional evidence and found that 10 additional civil parties had a right to reparations, see Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, §§ 522–629.

  102. 102.

    It held that the Trial Chamber committed various errors, e.g. that the Trial Chamber violated the civil parties’ right to a reasoned decision, Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, § 671; see also Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, §§ 652–668; Duch Trial Judgment, supra note 3, §§ 660–665; both Chambers also held (to varying degrees) that reparation requests should be sufficiently specific.

  103. 103.

    Duch Appeal Judgment, supra note 2, §§ 672–677, 708–709; Duch Trial Judgment, supra note 3, §§ 667, 668; see also http://www.eccc.gov.kh/en/publication/duch-apology-high-resolution (visited 15 June 2015).

  104. 104.

    The ECCC Internal Rules were adopted on 12 June 2007, see http://www.eccc.gov.kh/sites/default/files/legal-documents/IR-Eng.pdf (visited 15 June 2015).

  105. 105.

    Internal Rules Revisions 5 and 6 at the 6th and 7th plenary sessions respectively.

  106. 106.

    Internal Rule 23(3).

  107. 107.

    See Severance Order pursuant to Internal Rule 89ter, Nuon Chea and others (002/19–09–2007/ECCC-E124), Trial Chamber, 22 September 2011, § 8; similarly, the proceedings against Ieng Thirith were preliminarily stayed without effects on the civil party group.

  108. 108.

    See Internal Rule 23quinquies.

  109. 109.

    See Internal Rule 23quinquies(3); see also Initial specification of the substance of the awards that the Civil Party Lead Co-lawyers intend to seek—Hearing of 19 October 2011, Nuon Chea and others (002/19-09-2007-ECCC-E125/2), Civil Parties, 12 March 2012; see Judgment, Nuon Chea and others (002/19-09-2007/ECCC-E313), Trial Chamber, 7 August 2014, at 597–622.

  110. 110.

    See Article 14new(1)(b) ECCC Law.

  111. 111.

    See for the most recent judgments on reparations: Judgement, Nuon Chea and others (002/19-09-2007/ECCC-E313), Trial Chamber, 7 August 2014, at 597–622; see also Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Judgment on the appeal against the “Decision establishing the principles and procedures to be applied to reparations” of 7 August 2012 with AMENDED order for reparations (Annex A), ICC Appeals Chamber, 3 March 2015.

References

  • Boyle D (2006) The Rights of Victims. Journal of International Criminal Justice 4:307–313

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckelmans F (2012) The ECCC in the context of Cambodian Law. In: Hor P, Kong P, Menzel J (eds) Introduction to Cambodian Law. Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, Phnom Penh, pp 459–461

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison S (2009) Extraordinary Language in the Courts of Cambodia: Interpreting the limiting language and personal jurisdiction of the Cambodian Tribunal, Capital University Law Review 37:583–629

    Google Scholar 

  • Staker C, Eckelmans F (2015) Article 81. In: Triffterer O (ed) A Commentary to the Rome Statute, Article by Article, 3rd edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Hague, Netherlands

    Franziska C. Eckelmans

Authors
  1. Franziska C. Eckelmans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Franziska C. Eckelmans .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Aachen, Germany

    Simon M. Meisenberg

  2. Faculty of Law, Franz von Liszt Institut, Giessen, Germany

    Ignaz Stegmiller

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Eckelmans, F.C. (2016). The Duch Case: The ECCC Supreme Court Chamber’s Review of Case 001. In: Meisenberg, S., Stegmiller, I. (eds) The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia. International Criminal Justice Series, vol 6. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-105-0_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-105-0_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-104-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-105-0

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation