Another Procedure That Goes Nowhere

 

The prosecution initiated yet another procedure for which there is absolutely no support in Cambodian law, nor do the circumstances of this procedure pass the test for accessing “procedural rules established at the international level,” thus, making said procedure unlawful. Said procedure is the determination of uncontested facts in Case 002/02, a procedure widely used at common law but never in the courts of Cambodia.

The oddity of this procedure is not limited to the fact of its unlawfulness but also includes its timing and its very nature.

The timing of the prosecution’s initiation of this procedure is a period before any judgment, trial or appellate, in Case 02/001. This means that by stipulating to certain things proffered as facts by the prosecution, the defense would be causing itself prejudice insofar as the judgment and the appeal judgment in Case 02/001 are concerned as Case 02/001 and 02/002 are so interconnected that a stipulation is 02/001 can have direct impact on 02/002.

The very nature of said procedure makes it a poor fit with the circumstances of this process. This procedure exists in the national common law jurisdictions because there is much interest in it all around for it saves time: Parties direct their lawyers to attempt this procedure to save the parties costs, the bench wants this procedure for it helps it cut the case time and move along the docket, contingency lawyers want it because they do not get paid by the hour and are motivated to keep things moving, etc. At this Court there is absolutely no interest in this procedure as all officers of the court – including the defense – depends on these proceedings for a living, and after 8 years of this Court’s operation, for a career (it is important to note that the vast majority of the international officers of the Court are not guaranteed continued UN employment upon the completion of the Court or their work with it, whichever happens first; the Cambodian officers of the Court will not be able to make anywhere near what they are now making at the Court practicing law in Cambodia).

Did I mention the procedure is unlawful under the law applicable to the ECCC?

The defense stipulated to nothing. Given the above, was that not to be expected?