Case study
Université du Québec à Montréal – Cambodge 2005 CCUPP team project
The fate of freedom of speech in Cambodia
Executive summary
When it signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1992, Cambodia committed itself to protect the right to freedom of speech. Nevertheless, for a number of years, human rights activists, journalists, union members and members of the opposition have been prosecuted and jailed, with the result that many people have fled the country. Defamation is a criminal offence, liable to long jail sentences, in a country where the authorities’ regular interference in the judicial process casts doubt on its fairness and impartiality . Other public freedoms such as freedom of assembly and association have also been curtailed. To confront the government and attempt an effective defence of free expression, human rights NGOs, such as the Cambodian League for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights (known by its French acronym of LICADHO), have created coalitions in order to pool their resources and join their voices. Among other means, their strategies include information and awareness building via interviews in local newspapers, e-mails and letters to the international community, organizing peaceful gatherings and giving support to victims.
Suppression of demonstrations
Cambodia saw several violations of the right to free speech on and around International Human Rights Day ( December 10, 2005) in Phnom Penh, where the police wanted to prevent some NGOs from carrying a controversial b anner.
According to the authorities, the banner had not received prior government approval. This requirement, which is really a thinly veiled form of censorship, is difficult to reconcile with the principles of free speech.
Some members of the NGO1 that had created the b anner and one of the members of the event’s organizing committee2 were arrested and charged with criminal offences. The authorities claimed that the words written on the b anner (which the police immediately attempted to seize) were defamatory because they openly criticized policies put forward by the head of state, who had recently decided to cede some territory to the Vietnamese government. The government was expecting an unfavourable public reaction.3 Treating defamation as a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment rather than a civil offence also seems unduly severe, given the nature of the offence and the circumstances. It is difficult to reconcile this approach with the basic principles of freedom of expression.4
The situation described here is exacerbated by the continual interference of the executive power in the operations of the police and the courts, which are used to serve the government’s ends and silence political opposition. The government’s manipulation of the judicial system has resulted in the very obvious fragility of the rights of the “accused,” particularly in criminal cases, and the impartiality and fairness of the judicial process is seriously compromised.
Public debate and the expression of opinion on public affairs without fear of government retaliation are among the prerogatives and strengths of a democracy. Unfortunately, for many years human rights activists, journalists, union members and members of the opposition, in particular, have been and continue to be the targets of persecution and imprisonment, to the extent that many have left the country. Government measures limit free speech in two ways: those who comment on government policies are arrested, imprisoned and treated as criminals, with the result that others are discouraged from speaking out for fear of similar retaliation.
Systematic restrictions
Our case is not an isolated incident. In the wake of the controversy surrounding the negotiations to redraw the border between Cambodia and Vietnam, two people individus5 were imprisoned for criticizing the Prime Minister’s decision.
Cambodia ’s constitution specifically protects free expression (section 41). The present systematic restrictions seem more a government attempt to suppress any means of spreading opinions on national issues. They also serve to weaken civil society.
This situation, which is not only tolerated but actually brought about by the Cambodian government, is evidence of the latter’s failure to live up to its international obligations, particularly those set down in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protecting freedom of speech (article 19), which Cambodia signed in 19 92. .
Moreover, other civil liberties, such as the freedom of peaceful assembly and association, which are closely linked to the exercise and enjoyment of freedom of speech, have also been subject to restriction. As a case in point, since the anti-Thai riots in Phnom Penh in 2003, the government has not hesitated to use public safety as an argument for restricting, even prohibiting, a number of meetings and demonstrations. The police and the army have used intimidation and force to disperse several gatherings. These repeated infringements on human rights continue to threaten good governance and democracy in Cambodia.
The role of NGOs
The actions that NGOs such as LICADHO can undertake are limited. They have to protect themselves and, especially, ensure that they don’t expose previous victims to even greater risks. To try to exert pressure on the authorities, LICADHO makes use of the networks to which it belongs to alert or inform the greatest possible number of people. Information sharing and awareness building are done through e-mail, interviews and formal letters to other NGOs, local papers, the international community and funding organizations. By disclosing information LICADHO tries to reach and mobilize all those who are directly or indirectly concerned with the problem, which in this case is suppression of the fundamental right to freedom of expression.
To stay abreast of the situation and ensure appropriate monitoring, LICADHO tries to keep numerous reports up to date. In November 2005, for example, it updated the report on freedom of association and assembly, Restrictions on the Freedom of Assembly in Cambodia Briefing Paper 2005,6 which was to have been released on International Human Rights Day. The report denounced the Cambodian authorities’ systematic violation of the right to peaceful assembly. The effect of the report would have been to alert the international community present on the symbolic day, because the number of cases enumerated was astounding.7 But because of the general tension at the time, it seemed politic to be patient and postpone the report’s publication. However, after the arrests on December 10, 2005, LICADHO wanted to respond and show its disapproval, so it published a second report, Attacks on Freedom of Expression & Political Rights,8 to put pressure on the government to release the three Cambodians arbitrarily imprisoned for defamation.
With the goal of raising awareness in Cambodian society, LICADHO helps to organize peaceful gatherings such as the one held on December 10, 2005, in order to enable Cambodians to express their desire for greater observance of human rights in their country. dans le but
LICADHO also works with victims; it supports the families of those arrested (in this case for defamation), helps the victims find a lawyer, assists them through their legal proceedings and provides medical care when required. In this regard, LICADHO’s president was able to obtain authorization to have Mam Sonando, who required medical attention, examined by the NGO’s physician while the former was in prison.9
Internally, LICADHO works to ensure the ongoing training of its staff. It organizes workshops in Phnom Penh and in its provincial offices. These activities focus alternately on completing the employees’ training with respect to national law and on making them aware of the international dimension of human rights protection.10
To increase its influence and its action options, aLICADHO participates in a number of coalitions of local and international NGOs. By pooling their resources and joining their voices, NGO coalitions seem to be taken more seriously and are able to maintain a more even power relationship with the government. LICADHO is a member of the All iance for Freedom of Expression in Cambodia and was its spokesperson in the defence and support of the three accused and in demanding their release.11 The local NGO networks are supported in their efforts by international NGOs12 aware of the Cambodian situation, and by other institutions13 such as the World Bank, the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Human Rights in Cambodia and the European Parliament.
All these activities have contributed to improving the situation significantly. In the case studied here, the three men arrested after the events of December 10, 2005, were finally released in January 2006, as a result of (among other things) the steps taken by LICADHO and its partners.
Although the general issue of freedom of speech and the specific fate of the three men have not yet been resolved,14 this case testifies to the seriousness of the ette situationsituation and the importance of coordinated efforts by all stakeholders involved. Although the limitations of the partners’ mandates are quickly obvious, their initiatives seem to be vital to the observance of human rights and the strengthening of democracy and the rule of law in Cambodia .
Endnotes
1 On December 31, 2005, Kem Sokha, director of the NGO Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR), and Pa Ngoun Teang, director of CCHR’s radio section, were arrested and held because of the words written on the b anner mentioned above.
2 Yeng Virak, president of the NGO Community Legal Education Center (CLEC) and secretary of the event’s organizing committee, was arrested the same day as èKem Sokha and for the same reason.
3 The day the decision was made, the government significantly increased the presence of the national police in the city and blocked off main roads to vehicle traffic.
4 In this regard, see the NGO’s press release, Article 19, January 23, 2006, www.article19.org/pdfs/letters/cambodia-s-draft-penal-code.pdf.
5 Rong Chhun and Mam Sonando, respectively president of the Cambodia Independent Teachers’ Association and director of the radio station Beehive. The two men were arrested in October 2005.
6 LICADHO, Restrictions on the Freedom of Assembly in Cambodia Briefing Paper 2005, www.licadho.org/reports/files/76LICADHOPaperFreedomAssembly05.pdf. Interns Marjolaine Breton and Josée-Anne Riverin worked with several members of LICADHO to update this report.
7 For example, more than 16 cases of gatherings involving the use of physical force were enumerated last year.
8 LICADHO, Cambodia: Attacks on freedom of expression, www.licadho.org/reports/files/78LICADHOPaperFreedomArrests05.pdf.
9 Mam Sonando, director of the radio station Beehive, was imprisoned in October 2005 for commenting on the head of state’s decision to cede territory to the government of Vietnam.
10 Intern Caroline Walter, in collaboration with Thara, a LICADHO member, developed and presented a training seminar on the branches of the United Nations and complaint mechanisms for individuals in case of human rights violations. The training was given to the heads of the main LICADHO offices (15 people took part).
11 See especially the open letter to the Prime Minister of Cambodia sent by the Forum-Asia NGO network, January 2006, and the LICADHO reports of January 12 and February 1, 2006, on behalf of the Alliance for Freedom of Expression in Cambodia.
12 See the reports of Human Rights Watch, January 2, 2006, Amnesty International, January 5, 2006, and the International Commission of Jurists, January 10, 2006. Links to all these reports are listed in chronological order on the LICADHO web site, www.licadho.org/campaign.
13 See the World Bank press release of January 9, 2006, and the European Parliament’s resolution on political repression in Cambodia of January 19, 2006. Links to all these reports are listed in chronological order on the LICADHO web site, www.licadho.org/campaign.
14 According to available information, charges against Kem Sokha, Yeng Virak and Pa Ngoun Teang have not yet been dropped.
Written by
Marjolaine Breton , Josée Anne Riverin, Caroline Walter and Bernard Duhaime
Team members from Université du Québec à Montréal
Marjolaine Breton, BA student in international relations and international law
Josée-Anne Riverin, BA student in international relations and international law
Caroline Walter, master’s student in international law
Peter Leuprecht, director, Institut d’études internationales de Montréal
Bernard Duhaime, professor, department of judicial science
|