Reasonableness Prevails, Allowing Expert Testimony to Continue in the Duch Trial

by Laura MacDonald, Member of the New York Bar and Consultant to the Center for International Human Rights, Northwestern University School of Law
— 21 May, 2009

Reasonable Resolution of Procedural Dispute

The Trial Chamber announced it would conduct an in camera trial management session to address the heated procedural dispute that ended the session yesterday, specifically whether international co-prosecutor Alex Bates would be allowed to read out summaries of 148 documents referenced in Dr. Craig Etcheson’s expert report in order for them to be “put before the Chamber” within the meaning of Internal Rule 87. Notably, the Civil Parties were excluded from the closed session while The Accused, Kaing Guek Eav (Duch), was allowed to participate.

Hours later, the Chamber returned a very reasonable ruling. After declaring yesterday that Dr. Etcheson was a mouthpiece of the prosecution, during the closed session the defense had apparently acknowledged the expertise of Dr. Etcheson and accepted his expert report. The defense further acknowledged that the expert report and its annexes were “put before the Chamber” subject to its right to challenge any documents or parts thereof. The Chamber considered the annexes and all documents mentioned therein integral parts of the report. As a practical matter, this ruling saved many hours if not days of reading document summaries. The Chamber did not appear to declare a general procedural rule, but rather made references to this expert report and its annexes specifically.

Giving the audience a glimpse into the negotiations that had gone on behind closed doors, international defense counsel Francois Roux then drew a distinction between pre-July 2007, when Dr. Etcheson’s expert report was submitted, and post-July 2007. Prior to July 2007, Roux argued that although Dr. Etcheson had ties to the prosecution, Duch had not yet been indicted, so the expert report was generic rather than biased. Roux insisted the expert must not rely on elements in the case file which came about post-July 2007 after the submission of his expert report…

Read more: ctm_blog_5-21-2009

Cambodia Tribunal Monitor’s Trial Observer posts are written according to the personal observations and opinions of the writer and do not constitute a transcript of ECCC proceedings or the views of Cambodia Tribunal Monitor and/or its partners. Official court transcripts for the ECCC’s hearings may be accessed at the ECCC website.