Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page


Instead of just arresting people, why don't they solve the real problem? The real problem is the dumping of the waste.

B Cambodian human rights worker

Licadho Arrests

The next day, Monday December 21, 1998, Kim Sen and Meas Minear were arrested. There is convincing evidence that the arrests had the approval of Sar Kheng, who had been with Khim Bo during the trouble the day before. A government official told Human Rights Watch that Sar Kheng was party to discussions about arresting the Licadho staff, although it was Khim Bo who pushed the hardest for their arrests.62 As minister of interior and the highest-ranking official present, Sar Kheng would have certainly had the ability to prevent the arrests or at least to insist that they be lawful.

On Monday morning, Kim Sen and three other rights workers went to Bettrang commune, near the dumpsite, to check on reports of demonstrations. (A small number of villagers, hearing of the riots in the city, had protested at the commune office.) The demonstrators had already left, so the rights workers traveled on to neighboring Ream commune to look for them there. Again, they found nothing. Kim Sen and his colleagues stopped at a coffee shop in Ream, where they were sitting when two vehicles of police arrived.63 About ten armed police surrounded the café, while their commander, Sihanoukville Deputy Police Commissioner Tak Vantha, asked for Kim Sen, who identified himself. Tak Vantha insisted that he get into one of the police vehicles. Kim Sen did so. Tak Vantha then showed Kim Sen's three colleagues a photograph, the one taken by the Public Opinion journalists at Licadho's office two days earlier, which pictured Kim Sen, Meas Minear, and market vendor Khieu Piseth, whom Tak Vantha mistakenly thought was also a Licadho staff member. Kim Sen's colleagues questioned Tak Vantha, who refused to give his name, although his identity was known to one of them. Asked to produce an arrest warrant, Tak Vantha reportedly replied that Kim Sen was being invited to the Sihanoukville police headquarters. Asked for a written invitation, he did not provide one. He also refused their request that Kim Sen be allowed to travel in the human rights workers' car, with a police escort, to voluntarily go to the police headquarters.64 The police drove Kim Sen away at high speed to a police station in Sihanoukville and later to the central police office.

Meas Minear was arrested a short time later at Licadho's office by four policemen who invited him to see the police commissioner. When asked, they showed neither an arrest warrant nor any official invitation. They took him in a police car, refusing his offer to travel separately, to police headquarters.

Human Rights Watch is convinced that both Kim Sen and Meas Minear were arbitrarily detained under implicit, if not explicit, threat of violence if they resisted. At no time during their arrests, or interrogation by police and then the local court, were they shown warrants for their arrest.65 On the day of their arrest, several human rights advocates, including from Human Rights Watch and the United Nations, requested to see, but were never shown, arrest warrants for the pair. In such circumstances, it must be concluded that their arrests were unlawful.66

Kim Sen and Meas Minear, separately interviewed by the police, were shown the Public Opinion photograph of them sitting with Khieu Piseth. They both explained the background to that photograph and denied doing anything other than advising people how to lawfully complain to the government. The two, along with Khieu Piseth, who had by that time also been arrested, were taken to Sihanoukville court the same day and questioned by investigating Judge Ke Sakhon, with other human rights workers present. Initially, the judge informed them that they were charged with robbery, wrongful damage of property and participation in an (illegal) demonstration. After listening to their testimony, he announced that he would drop the last charge. Kim Sen and Meas Minear remained charged with robbery and property damage, charges that related to the damage to the hotel and the governor's house but not with participating in the demonstration in which the damage was caused.67 The two were sent to Sihanoukville prison on the evening of December 21.

Other Arrests

At least seven alleged demonstrators were already at the prison. Authorities said they were arrested in the act of committing crimes during the demonstration at Khim Bo's house the day before.68 There are reports, backed by medical evidence, that police tortured at least two of these seven. One man later told the court that he was allegedly kicked and beaten unconscious is a bid to get him to confess that he opened a safe in the governor's house.69 One of those arrested was kept in shackles (a violation of prison regulations) at Sihanoukville prison, allegedly on the instructions of the court prosecutor.70 An eyewitness also told Human Rights Watch that two other men seen badly bleeding at a police station did not end up in the prison; what happened to them is unknown. There was, in fact, a discrepancy in the number of people arrested and those jailed: the court prosecutor told human rights investigators that nine people were arrested on December 20, but checks at the prison revealed only seven. The authorities later said that the remaining two were released and not charged.

In subsequent days and weeks, four further people were arrested in connection with the demonstrations. Counting Kim Sen, Meas Minear and Khieu Piseth, the total number of people arrested and jailed because of the demonstrations was fourteen.71

Court Complaints

Governor Khim Bo, as well as Kamsab and Customs officials, filed complaints to the court over damage to their properties during the riots. In a December 21 statement to the court, Khim Bo alleged that all acts [of robbery and damage] carried out by the offenders were incited and encouraged by somebody but did not refer to any evidence. In a subsequent January 6, 1999 complaint, Khim Bo requested compensation by physical imprisonment of the offenders. The governor put his losses at U.S.$444,168.67, including damage to his house and loss of property and cash. Court officials told Human Rights Watch that this amount included $230,000 in cash allegedly taken from his house--$80,000 of his own money72 and $150,000 belonging to his party, the ruling Cambodian People's Party (CPP). Kamsab estimated its losses at about $220,000, though one official told Human Rights Watch that the true cost of damage would not be known until hotel repairs were done.

Imprisonment and Pre-trial Release

Kim Sen and Meas Minear were arrested, according to Prosecutor Mourn Mith, because people arrested during the riots had named them as the demonstrations' masterminds. None of those arrested said any such thing in subsequent interviews with their lawyers and human rights staff, and none of them are now believed to be witnesses against the Licadho pair.

Kim Sen and Meas Minear were kept in prison for one month, after the Sihanoukville court rejected their lawyers' application for pre-trial release.73 The court stated that the two, if released, could influence witnesses and interfere with the investigation. Ironically, they were held in prison with the very demonstrators who, according to the prosecutor's earlier statement, had allegedly incriminated them.

Defense lawyers successfully appealed the Sihanoukville court's ruling to the Court of Appeal in Phnom Penh, which on January 20 granted pre-trial release to Kim Sen, Meas Minear and Khieu Piseth. In verbal comments before releasing his written ruling, the Court of Appeals judge said that the arrests and detention were improper, particularly because the Sihanoukville court had not requested to see the evidence against the three men before the arrests were made.74

Most of the alleged demonstrators were later also released pending trial, after spending up to six weeks in jail. However, two alleged demonstrators remained in prison as of late April. Those released were not cleared, and may still face trial. Under Cambodian law, the court has up to six months from date of arrest to decide whether to hold a trial or dismiss the charges. Therefore, a decision on the case of Kim Sen, Meas Minear and the others could be delayed until June 1999.

Procedural Irregularities

In the wake of complaints from human rights groups over the Licadho arrests, the Ministry of Justice in Phnom Penh dispatched officials to Sihanoukville to investigate. Following this investigation, the investigating officials told Human Rights Watch that they had informed the minister of justice that the Sihanoukville court had allegedly issued arrest warrants after Kim Sen and Meas Minear were arrested, backdating the warrants on the court files; they also told the minister that there was insufficient evidence for the pair to have been arrested and charged.75 It appears that the ministry's investigation was more of an informal, rather than formal, one; its conclusions were not made public, and no further action was taken.

According to experienced human rights lawyers, numerous procedural violations were committed in the case of Kim Sen and Meas Minear (and Khieu Piseth). They included:

$ No arrest warrants were produced at time of arrest.

$ The Sihanoukville court, as found by the Court of Appeal, did not review the evidence against the accused before they were arrested.

$ The Sihanoukville's court's negative decision over pre-trial release was not delivered within five days of the defense lawyers' application, a time period stipulated by law.

$ The defendants' lawyers were denied, until January 15, full access to the court and police case files.

$ The Court of Appeal, which is bound by law to rule on all appeals over pre-trial release within fifteen days of application, delivered its ruling on Kim Sen, Meas Minear and Khieu Piseth five days late, apparently because the Sihanoukville court was late in transferring files to the Court of Appeal.76

Judicial Independence

There is some evidence that the Sihanoukville court may not have acted independently, and its role in this case should ideally be examined by the Supreme Council of the Magistracy (if that institution was fully functional). In particular, there is some reason to believe that the court may have allowed itself to be improperly influenced by Khim Bo, a powerful official who is also a victim of the riots. Khim Bo, as both the current first deputy governor and the former governor of Sihanoukville during the former one-party State of Cambodia, is one of the highest ranking members of the ruling party in Sihanoukville and is thus in a position to influence the local police and judiciary.

The role of Khim Bo and Sar Kheng in ordering the arrests of Kim Sen and Meas Minear has already been mentioned. Cambodian law contains specific procedures for prosecutors and judges to determine whether arrest warrants and detention orders should be issued; an order from a provincial governor or a minister of interior is no lawful substitute for these procedures.

In addition, Khim Bo, by all accounts, was understandably furious at the trashing of his residence and clearly made his anger known. As Prosecutor Mourn Mith told Human Rights Watch: He even got angry with me. He telephoned me four times, to ask me to push the case more quickly to court. 77

Human Rights Watch could not confirm that Khim Bo had a direct role in the appointment of officials currently serving in the Sihanoukville court, but virtually all of Cambodia's current judges and prosecutors were appointed under the State of Cambodia and were required to be members of the ruling party, now called the CPP.78 Under State of Cambodia administrative practices, provincial governors were responsible for appointing local prosecutors and judges, and Khim Bo was governor of Sihanoukville. Khim Bo thus may well have had influence over the Sihanoukville judges.

Phnom Penh officials interviewed by Human Rights Watch had no doubt of Khim Bo's influence on the Sihanoukville judge and prosecutor. It is not so much pressure, as friendship B they are friends and want to help each other, said one senior Ministry of Justice official. They never follow the law B they follow their boss, said another, speaking about the Sihanoukville court. For their part, the Sihanoukville judge and prosecutor have publicly denied any interference in the handling of the Kim Sen and Meas Minear case. Judge Ke Sakhon noted to Human Rights Watch that the Ministry of Justice cannot legally interfere in the Sihanoukville court's investigations. Under Cambodia's Constitution, only the Supreme Council of Magistracy, which is not yet functioning properly, has responsibility for investigating complaints about the conduct of judges or prosecutors.

However, one senior court source made a telling comment about who lays down the law in Sihanoukville: Please, be calm, do not criticize, the source told Human Rights Watch. Now, when the victims [of the demonstrations] are calming down, please don't make them angry again. If the victims are angry again, Kim Sen and Meas Minear will go back to prison. It was clear that by victims he meant Khim Bo.

In a development that may reduce the possibility of undue influence on the Sihanoukville court in the future, Khim Bo was transferred from the province in a reshuffle of governorships throughout Cambodia in early 1999.

The Case against Kim Sen and Meas Minear

In the weeks and months after the arrests, court officials have referred to the following evidence against the Licadho staff:

$ Several photographs taken by Public Opinion, including one showing the two Licadho staff and Khieu Piseth at the Licadho office; another showing Kim Sen standing outside his office while marchers go past; and a third one purporting to show Kim Sen (who cannot be identified clearly) in a large group of demonstrators.

$ A purported tape recording made by the Public Opinion journalists of the conversation between the Licadho staff, Khieu Piseth and others at the above-mentioned meeting. (It should be noted that Prosecutor Mourn Mith acknowledged to Human Rights Watch in an interview that Kim Sen spoke only of a nonviolent demonstration in this meeting.)

$ The petition to the municipality (written by Meas Minear at Kim Sen's request) signed by more than 700 people.

$ A map prepared by Licadho showing the route of the Global March against Child Labor in Sihanoukville. The map is clearly marked with the date of the march, February 5, 1998.

$ Television footage filmed during the demonstrations. It is unclear what these tapes (not provided to defense lawyers) show; the prosecutor told Human Rights Watch that he himself had not watched them.79

$ A purported tape-recording of instructions given by Kim Sen and/or Meas Minear, over their ICOM portable radios, to demonstrators during the riots.80

$ A number of witness statements alleging that they saw or heard Kim Sen and/or Meas Minear actively participating in the demonstrations, damaging property, or giving instructions to protesters.

The witness statements appear to be the only evidence that Kim Sen and Meas Minear specifically directed or participated in the demonstrations, thereby committing or ordering robbery and property damage. But some of those statements, provided to defense lawyers, appear to have been written by policemen or police informants; some are in the form of reports which are not addressed to anyone and signed just by name, with no other identification.

Moreover, in a March 15 interview with Human Rights Watch, Sihanoukville Judge Ke Sakhon conceded that the investigation has so far not found evidence of these two offenses [robbery and property damage] in Kim Sen and Meas Minear's case. He said that the charges might be changed against them. The judge also said that, when the prosecutor had first sent him the court dossier on the case, he had sent it back to the prosecutor because of lack of evidence. The prosecutor had since returned the file to the judge, who was apparently still unconvinced of the evidence, as he told Human Rights Watch that more evidence may be found in the future. The prosecutor also made it clear that he was not yet convinced that Kim Sen and Meas Minear directly incited the demonstrations, telling Human Rights Watch: If people gave orders to destroy cars, destroy houses, then they will go to trial. If Minear and Kim Sen did not give orders like that, they will not go to trial. However, both the judge and prosecutor made it plain that they did not believe Kim Sen and Meas Minear's explanations of their actions, and both said they were seeking witnesses to, in the judge's words, put weight on them [the Licadho pair].

Human Rights Watch believes that the actions of Kim Sen, before and during the demonstrations, as corroborated by the officials or witnesses involved, are particularly telling: when first approached by disgruntled vendors, one of the first things he did was to call a senior local official, the second deputy governor. When meeting with the market vendors at his office, he clearly had nothing to hide; he freely permitted journalists to be present, to take photographs and listen to the conversation. One of the first things he did, upon hearing of the prospect of demonstrations, was to telephone the district police chief. After the destruction of the Kamsab hotel, Kim Sen met and talked to one of the hotel's managers, who had witnessed the protesters' rampage. The manager, far from blaming Kim Sen, offered him a ride and later had lunch with him. The prosecutor, asked about Kim Sen's telephone calls to police chief Prum Sokhan, told Human Rights Watch that he did not know about this (which is curious given that Prum Sokhan referred to the calls in his statement to the court).81

Finally, there is no evidence that at any time during the demonstrations did any police of other officials confront the Licadho staff or accuse them of leading or inciting the protesters. Indeed, a police report to the court dated December 28, seven days after Kim Sen and Meas Minear were arrested and jailed, did not include the Licadho pair in a list of names of the alleged leaders of the demonstrations.82

The Role of Public Opinion Newspaper

The key witnesses and evidence, according to Prosecutor Mourn Mith, are the two journalists from Sathearanak Mati (Public Opinion) and the photographs of Kim Sen and Meas Minear that they took.

In Cambodia's politicized fourth estate, Public Opinion is firmly in the pro-CPP camp. Founded in 1993 under the name Sakal (Universal), the newspaper has always been staunchly anti-royalist and therefore opposed to the Funcinpec party, which is headed by the king's son, Prince Norodom Ranariddh. Sakal created headlines in May 1994 when it was raided by Funcinpec-aligned police, who confiscated an entire print run, after it published photographs and articles implying that King Norodom Sihanouk supported the Khmer Rouge. The police raid drew heavy condemnation from human rights workers, including from the United Nations. Two months later, it was one of several newspapers threatened with a lawsuit by the minister of information for allegedly jeopardizing social order and national security in their coverage of an attempted coup d'etat.83

By 1997, the newspaper had taken the name Public Opinion and continued to publish attacks against the king, Prince Ranariddh, and Funcinpec. In the election year of 1998, the opposition party leader Sam Rainsy also became a favorite target in the newspaper's pages. Public Opinion carried advertisements for the CPP in the run-up to the elections and published stories exhorting readers to vote for the party. It accused Funcinpec of plotting terrorism during the elections.84 After the elections, it appeared to have financial or other operational difficulties, publishing less frequently, with as long as four or five weeks passing between editions. Later in 1998, shortly before the waste dumping case, it resumed publishing more often, two or three times a week.

Cambodia's large, unruly press has long been criticized for being unprofessional and politically partisan. With very few exceptions, newspapers on all sides of the political spectrum are characterized less by news than by opinion, satire, outright vitriol and propaganda, and often gory photos. A handful of papers are well-entrenched and well-known, and attract most of the newspaper advertising market. The majority of them, including Public Opinion, are not generally known and carry only minimal advertising. Most newspapers are widely believed to depend on the financial patronage of particular politicians or businesspeople, and their reporting usually reflects such allegiances. A Human Rights Watch review of headlines published by Public Opinion85 shows that the newspaper has consistently been pro-CPP. Especially around the time of the waste dumping, it devoted prominent coverage to Sar Kheng, the minister of interior. By November 1998, just before the waste importation, it was regularly lashing out at senior Funcinpec official You Hockry, who is Sar Kheng's counterpart as minister of interior.86 Public Opinion's first story about the waste importation, in early December, was carried in the same edition as a front-page headline which described Sar Kheng as the pillar of the ministry of interior. Its next edition carried a further attack on Funcinpec's You Hockry, whom it described as a rotten fish. The following edition gave prominent coverage to a speech by Sar Kheng calling for the rule of law in Cambodia, complete with front-page photo of Sar Kheng giving donations to poor villagers. This trend has continued consistently in the newspaper.87

Public Opinion's director and editor, Lach Samroang, in a March 29, 1999 interview with Human Rights Watch, said the paper's editorial policy was to oppose corruption, support Cambodia's territorial integrity against foreign aggression, and act as a conduit between the common people and the government.

Lach Samroang declined to say who initially tipped off the Phnom Penh-based newspaper to the toxic waste story but said that both he and his chief of editors, Chhin Sovann, went to Sihanoukville to investigate. It was they who visited the Licadho office and took the photographs that have now been given to the Sihanoukville court. Lach Samroang declined to talk in any detail about Licadho and the demonstrations but referred to the same evidence cited by the court: the photos, petition and purported tape-recording of Kim Sen talking to the market vendors.88

Public Opinion's version of events involving the Licadho staff is contained in two articles, in its December 22-23 and December 24-25, 1998 editions. The first story referred to Licadho staff having written the petition and encouraged people to hold a demonstration. At one point, the story alleges that Kim Sen Ahid in the crowd and yelled insults at the authorities in the first day of protests. The second story alleges that the petition, initiated by Licadho, was thumbprinted in a secret way. (The article also notes that Public Opinion went to Licadho, spoke to the staff and the vendors about the petition, and took photographs.) The second story quotes Kim Sen as saying that if the municipality did not respond to the petition, he would lead a public demonstration. The newspaper notes that Kim Sen spoke only of a nonviolent demonstration and that Public Opinion appreciated the good idea of the Licadho coordinator. The newspaper further states that Licadho had spoken to police and municipal officials including First Deputy Governor Khim Bo.89

There is a discrepancy between the two Public Opinion stories over the pulling down of the Camcontrol sign on the first day of the protests. The first story says that the demonstrators, when talking to the police, said that they had no representatives or leaders and that they wanted the sign pulled down. The police, because of the tense situation, let them take the sign down. The second story, however, accuses Kim Sen of inciting the demonstrators to remove the sign.

The second story includes more references to Kim Sen and Meas Minear participating and giving orders in the demonstrations. For example, according to the second article, Kim Sen was at one point seen wearing a blue Licadho t-shirt, sandals, cap and eating bread, walking in front of the demonstrators. It alleges that Kim Sen, Meas Minear, and other colleagues ordered the burning and storming of Khim Bo's house on the second day of the protests. The newspaper clarifies this by saying that Meas Minear directed the people to push into Khim Bo's house, while Kim Sen was standing near a man who was encouraging the demonstrators through a loudhailer. The second story also refers to Kim Sen's alleged political affiliations, describing him as a member of the opposition Sam Rainsy Party.

Prosecutor Mourn Mith told Human Rights Watch that the key evidence was the two journalists' reports of the meeting at the Licadho office and the petition (he did not refer to their allegations of Licadho actively participating in the demonstrations). The prosecutor acknowledged that Kim Sen had only talked about a the possibility of a peaceful demonstration but blamed the Licadho man for not seeking permission for a demonstration. If Sam Rainsy wants to have a demonstration, he has to apply to the governor. If Kim Sen wants to have a demonstration, he has to apply to the governor, the prosecutor said.90

As for the rest of Cambodia's press, the toxic waste and the demonstrations provoked a flurry of articles, most of them concentrating on the issues of government corruption and the importation of the waste. Does Hun Sen want to jail nine demonstrators' representatives to substitute for the people who imported the poisonous wastes? inquired one anti-government newspaper's headline.91

62 Human Rights Watch interview with a government official, March 1999.

63 Sihanoukville court Prosecutor Mourn Mith and Judge Ke Sakhon alleged that Kim Sen, because he was arrested outside of Sihanoukville town, was trying to flee the police, who Afollowed@ or Achased@ him (to the coffee shop where he sat drinking with his colleagues); Human Rights Watch interviews with judge and prosecutor, Sihanoukville, March 15, 1999.

64 Human Rights Watch interview with a witness to the arrest, March 25, 1999.

65 Sihanoukville court Prosecutor Mourn Mith and Judge Ke Sakhon maintain that warrants were issued before the arrests. Mourn Mith said that he, in contact with the police by radio, did not give them the all clear to arrest Kim Sen until a warrant was issued. Ke Sakhon, meanwhile, suggested that because the police knew and respected Kim Sen, they did not want to Aembarrass@ the Licadho man by showing him a warrant; Human Rights Watch interviews with judge and prosecutor, March 15, 1999.

66 Under Cambodian law B frequently abused B no one can be lawfully arrested without a warrant unless they are caught committing a crime in flagrante delicto (red-handed, or in the act).

67 Judge Ke Sakhon and Prosecutor Mourn Mith were later quoted by journalists as saying that the Licadho pair, although charged with robbery and property damage, were really accused of inciting or leading an unlawful protest which led to robbery and damage (an implicit acknowledgment that the charges were dubious to begin with).

68 The case against one of those arrested is that he chased another man who had stolen money from Khim Bo=s house, and picked up U.S.$100 which was dropped or thrown by the alleged thief; Human Rights Watch interview with Judge Ke Sakhon, March 15, 1999.

69 Undated statement to the court by arrested man.

70 Sources who asked prison guards about the shackling attributed it to the prosecutor=s order. The prosecutor, questioned by human rights workers, reportedly replied that shacking was necessary to prevent prisoners from escaping. The shackling, which was also imposed on several other prisoners (not related to the demonstrations), was reportedly stopped at the request of U.N. human rights monitors.

71 Human Rights Watch interview with Judge Ke Sakhon, March 15, 1999. Initial reports on the arrest of minors suggested that three children aged fifteen or under had been detained, but lack of documentation often makes it difficult to establish ages in Cambodia. Cambodian human rights investigators found that only one child had been arrested.

72 The official monthly salary of a deputy governor is around 100,000 Cambodian riels (around U.S.$27), according to a deputy governor from another province interviewed by Human Rights Watch.

73 All the legal requirements for pre-trial release were met: Kim Sen and Meas Minear have families and homes in Sihanoukville, and Licadho=s executive director vouched that they would not flee and would face trial if required.

74 Khuy Sokhoeun, AJudge Grants Bail to Jailed Licadho Pair,@ The Cambodia Daily, January 21, 1999.

75 Human Rights Watch interviews with two senior Ministry of Justice officials, March and April 1999. One of them noted that the first charge was difficult to prove, given that the arrest warrants on file at the court had allegedly been backdated. The second charge, that the court had insufficient evidence to arrest and charge Kim Sen and Meas Minear, was easier to prove, because the court still did not have any evidence by the time the Ministry of Justice officials made their investigation.

76 Human Rights Watch interview with Ministry of Justice official, Phnom Penh, April 1999.

77 Human Rights Watch interview with Prosecutor Mourn Mith, Sihanoukville, March 15, 1999.

78 Under State of Cambodia administrative practices, provincial governors were responsible for appointing local prosecutors and judges, according to lawyers and justice officials interviewed by Human Rights Watch. Therefore, Khim Bo may have himself directly appointed the current Sihanoukville court officials, although this is not confirmed.

79 Human Rights Watch was told that an angry governor Khim Bo, soon after his house was attacked, produced a video tape purporting to show Kim Sen or Meas Minear committing property damage. When the tape was showed to a group of officials, it was established that the culprit was in fact someone else. Human Rights Watch interview with government official, March 1999.

80 The prosecutor originally claimed to have such a recording but later denied it. In a meeting with a senior Justice Ministry official, he suggested that the fact that the Licadho staff was seen with portable radios was evidence of their guilt. The justice official, in the presence of human rights workers, reminded the prosecutor that possession of radios was not an offense. Many international agencies and non-government groups use ICOM portable radios in Cambodia.

81 Written statement of testimony to Sihanoukville court by Prum Sokhan, December 21, 1998.

82 Report to the court by Em Bunsath, police commissioner of Sihanoukville, December 28, 1998. The report names more than ten people alleged to have planned the demonstrations and/or actively incited people to commit crimes during them. Only one person on the list, a teenage boy, is believed to have been arrested.

83 See Jon Ogden and Heng Sok Chheng, ANewsmen in new intimidation claims,@ Phnom Penh Post, June 3-16, 1994; and Sou Sophornnara and Mang Channo, AEditors angered by Mouly=s moves,@ Phnom Penh Post, July 29-August 11, 1994.

84 Sathearanak Mati, Volume 2, Issue 45, July 19-20, 1998.

85 Human Rights Watch review of The Mirror, a weekly English-language journal, published by the NGO Open Forum of Cambodia, which summarizes the content of the Khmer press, from February 1998 to March 1999.

86 Under their power-sharing arrangement, Funcinpec and CPP each appoint one minister of interior.

87 Ibid, Human Rights Watch review of The Mirror. Examples of Public Opinion=s consistently pro-Sar Kheng coverage include: AHis Excellency Sar Kheng gives money to help poor and elderly,@ June 6-7, 1998; ASar Kheng: Government needs intellectuals as a resource to develop country@, November 28-29, 1998; AHis Excellency Sar Kheng is the Pillar of the Ministry of Interior@ [which described Funcinpec=s You Hockry as having a face Alike a countryside dog,@ while Sar Kheng was Astrict, patient and full of capacity@], December 5-6, 1998; AHis Excellency Sar Kheng: In the second [government] term we have an obligation to move Cambodia into a state of law,@ December 12-13, 1998; AMr Sar Kheng: Developing human resources is the task of the government,@ February 2-3, 1999; ASar Kheng is Acting Prime Minister instead of Hun Sen@ [which described Sar Kheng as Aa political figure who solves problems peacefully@], February 6-7, 1999.

88 Human Rights Watch interview with Lach Samroang, Phnom Penh, March 29, 1999.

89 This is incorrect B it was Hing Sarin, not Khim Bo, whom Kim Sen telephoned.

90 Human Rights Watch interview with Prosecutor Mourn Mith, Sihanoukville, March 15, 1999.

91 Udom Katte Khmer, December 23, 1998.

Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

This Web page was created using a BETA Version of HTML Transit 4.0.