Civil Party Co-Lawyers’ Joint Response to the Appeal of Ieng Sary against the OCIJ Order on Extension of Provisional Detention

Syllabus

1. The discretion of the OCIJ has been properly exercised and shows no unreasonable and unsustainable grounds. The Appeal of the Defense shows no error in the Extension Order. The Extension Order is reasoned and justifiable.

2. Pursuant to Rule 63(3)(a), there are well-founded reasons to believe that the Charged Person is strongly suspected of having committed the crimes detailed in the Introductory Submission. The investigations during the last year have been conducted expeditiously and with due diligence and have brought up new evidence.

3. Furthermore, the order of provisional detention is a necessary measure to prevent the Charged Person from interfering with victims and witnesses, to preserve evidence, to preserve the public order, to secure safety and to ensure his presence in the upcoming trial. The order fulfills the requirements of Rule 63(3)(b)(i-v).

4. House arrest under certain conditions may amount to a mode of detention, but cannot prevent all of the reasons given Rule 63(3)(b) IR, in particular to preserve public order, to secure the Charge Person’s safety and to preserve evidence.