International or Domestic Court?

Day two of the Kaing Guek Eav (alias “Duch”) appeals before the Supreme Court Chamber centered around the prosecution’s appeal of the Trial Chamber’s judgment on grounds that the Trial Chamber incorrectly interpreted crimes against humanity and issued a manifestly insufficient sentence. Along with the change in topic from yesterday’s hearing came a noticeable shift in tone as co-prosecutor Andrew Cayley’s calm and methodical approach created a stark contrast with co-defense counsel Kar Savuth’s vocal and animated representation the day before.

Judge Agnieszka Klonowiecka-Milart began the proceedings by reading through the prosecution’s and defense’s appeals of the judgment. The prosecution was requesting a re-characterization of Duch’s conviction accompanied by a higher sentence. The defense was asking for a reduction.

Framing the specific legal arguments were differing thematic approaches taken by the prosecution and defense. On the one hand, Cayley began his oral arguments with a plea to the Supreme Court Chamber to recognize its position as an internationalized court, distinct from the domestic Cambodian judiciary. He asked the court to seize this important opportunity to foster the growth of a consistent body of international jurisprudence by looking to precedent from other tribunals. This foundation proved essential as each argument he made was supported with international case law. The defense, on the other hand, was quick to remind the Chamber throughout the day that the ECCC exists within the Cambodian judiciary and, as such, should be bound by domestic law…

Read more: ctm_blog_03-29-2011