Trial Monitoring

ECCC, Case 002/01, Issue 5

November 23, 2011
ECCC, Case 002/01, Issue 5
Publication Documents
Case or Series

Case 002/01

Case or Series

ECCC

Country

Cambodia

Language

English

This week at the ECCC, hundreds of people – monks, civil parties, survivors, former Khmer Rouge cadres, police officers, students, and guests from various parts of the world – packed the Court's public gallery between 21 and 23 November 2011 to hear the Opening Statements in Case 002 against Nuon Chea, Ieng Sary and Khieu Samphan. The session began with a reading of the charges against each Accused and was followed by an oral review of the terms of the Severance Order by President of the Trial Chamber. President Nil Nonn reviewed the matters which will be covered in the first trial of this complex case. He also reminded the parties of the Trial Chamber’s prerogative to amend the scope of the first trial to include additional portions of the Closing Order.

After these administrative matters had been reviewed, opening statements commenced. The Prosecution had two days to present their opening statements and discuss all the charges and factual allegations of Case 002. National Co-Prosecutor Ms. Chea Leang expounded on the crimes allegedly committed by the Accused, while International CoProsecutor Mr. Andrew Cayley presented the Prosecution’s view of the facts of the case. After the Prosecution concluded its statements, all three defendants addressed the Chamber: Ieng Sary read a statement on the royal pardon and amnesty from King Norodom Sihanouk, while Nuon Chea and Khieu Samphan both gave lengthy statements denying any responsibility for the crimes they allegedly committed. Also of note during the first part of the first day of the hearing, the Nuon Chea and Ieng Sary Defense teams raised the matter of their applications seeking to disqualify Judge Silvia Cartright on the grounds that she had informal ex parte meetings with the International CoProsecutor and the Deputy Head of Administration, Knut Rosandhaug. The Chamber declared that it would address the motions in due course. In the meantime, the Court restricted the hearing to the matters indicated in the Scheduling Order.