Disclaimer: This site has been first put up 15 years ago. Since then I would probably do a couple things differently, but because I've noticed this site had been linked from news outlets, PhD theses and peer rewieved papers and because I really hate the concept of "digital dark age" I've decided to put it back up. There's no chance it can produce any harm now.
| Identifier: | 01PHNOMPENH1740 |
|---|---|
| Wikileaks: | View 01PHNOMPENH1740 at Wikileaks.org |
| Origin: | Embassy Phnom Penh |
| Created: | 2001-10-23 10:04:00 |
| Classification: | UNCLASSIFIED |
| Tags: | KPAO PHUM OIIP CB |
| Redacted: | This cable was not redacted by Wikileaks. |
R 231004Z OCT 01 FM AMEMBASSY PHNOM PENH TO SECSTATE WASHDC 6928 INFO ASEAN COLLECTIVE USCINCPAC HONOLULU HI
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PHNOM PENH 001740 E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: KPAO, PHUM, OIIP, CB SUBJECT: CAMBODIAN FOREIGN MINISTER WINS LIBEL CASE AGAINST NEWSPAPER 1. SUMMARY: A RECENT DEFAMATION/LIBEL CASE AGAINST THE COUNTRY'S LEADING ENGLISH-LANGUAGE NEWSPAPER, THE CAMBODIA DAILY, HAS JOURNALISTS CONCERNED THAT THE GOVERNMENT OR POWERFUL INDIVIDUALS CAN MAKE USE OF ANTI-DEFAMATION LAWS AND PLIANT COURTS TO INTIMIDATE JOURNALISTS AND PREVENT THEM FROM PUBLISHING CONTROVERSIAL STORIES. WHILE THERE IS NO CLEAR PATTERN OF SUCH ABUSE OF PRESS FREEDOM, FOREIGN MINISTER HOR NAMHONG WON A DEFAMATION SUIT IN SEPTEMBER AGAINST THREE CAMBODIA DAILY JOURNALISTS WHO PUBLISHED A QUOTE LINKING HIM TO ATROCITIES COMMITTED DURING THE KHMER ROUGE REGIME. USING THE UNTAC-PERIOD CRIMINAL CODE RATHER THAN THE MORE RECENT PRESS LAW, THE COURT FOUND THE JOURNALISTS GUILTY AND ORDERED THEM TO PRINT A RETRACTION AND PAY TOTAL FINES OF ABOUT $7,500 TO HOR NAMHONG AND THE STATE. SOME JOURNALISTS AND LEGAL OBSERVERS CHARGE THAT THE COURT PROCEEDINGS WERE IRREGULAR, AND BOTH SIDES HAVE ANNOUNCED THEY WILL APPEAL THE RULING. END SUMMARY. 2. IN JANUARY 2001, AT THE TIME OF THE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE OVER THE KHMER ROUGE TRIBUNAL LAW, THE CAMBODIA DAILY PUBLISHED TWO ARTICLES LINKING CAMBODIAN FOREIGN MINISTER HOR NAMHONG TO THE KHMER ROUGE REGIME AND KILLINGS AT THE INFAMOUS TUOL SLENG PRISON. ACCORDING TO QUOTES ATTRIBUTED TO FUNCINPEC PARTY SENATOR KEO BUNTHOUK, HOR NAMHONG, AS THE INMATE LEADER OF THE KHMER ROUGE RE-EDUCATION CENTER AND PRISON AT BOEUNG TRABEK, SENT FELLOW INMATES TO THE KHMER ROUGE INTERROGATION CENTER AND PRISON AT TUOL SLENG, AND THESE FELLOW INMATES WERE NEVER SEEN AGAIN. SENATOR KEO BUNTHOUK WAS ALSO A PRISONER IN BOEUNG TRABEK. HOR NAMHONG IS KNOWN FOR HIS SENSITIVITY ABOUT ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING HIS ROLE AT BOEUNG TRABEK, AND EVEN FILED A LIBEL SUIT IN FRANCE AGAINST KING SIHANOUK OVER A SIMILAR CHARGE PRIOR TO THE REESTABLISHMENT OF THE MONARCHY IN CAMBODIA. 3. HOR NAMHONG REPLIED THAT AS THE INMATE PRISON LEADER HE HAD NO POWER TO SEND OTHER PRISONERS TO TUOL SLENG. CLAIMING DEFAMATION AND LIBEL, HE FILED SUIT IN PHNOM PENH MUNICIPAL COURT AGAINST THE CAMBODIA DAILY'S U.S. CITIZEN EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, A U.S. CITIZEN REPORTER AND A CAMBODIAN REPORTER. THE TWO U.S. CITIZENS SUBSEQUENTLY LEFT THE COUNTRY, FOR REASONS NOT CONNECTED TO THE LAW SUIT. 4. DURING THE TRIAL IN SEPTEMBER 2001, SENATOR KEO BUNTHOUK TESTIFIED THAT SHE HAD NEVER MADE THE COMMENTS TO THE REPORTER LINKING HOR NAMHONG TO KHMER ROUGE KILLINGS. HOR NAMHONG ALSO PRODUCED TWO OTHER WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED THAT THEY WERE AT THE BOEUNG TRABEK PRISON AND THE FOREIGN MINISTER HAD NO POWER TO ORDER THE KILLING OF OTHER INMATES. THE CAMBODIA DAILY ARGUED THAT THE INFORMATION PRINTED IN THE ARTICLE WAS ACCURATE AND THAT QUOTES TAKEN FROM THE SENATOR DURING DEBATE COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED LIBEL. 5. DURING THE TRIAL, THE JUDGE REFUSED A DEFENSE REQUEST TO TRY THE CASE UNDER THE PRESS LAW, RATHER THAN THE OLDER AND LESS APPROPRIATE CRIMINAL CODE OF THE U.N. TRANSITIONAL AUTHORITY IN CAMBODIA (UNTAC). HOWEVER, THE MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE ISSUED HER VERDICT BASED ON BOTH LAWS. ON SEPTEMBER 21, THE JUDGE RULED AGAINST THE JOURNALISTS, AND ORDERED THEM TO PAY $6,250 DAMAGES TO THE FOREIGN MINISTER AND $1,250 IN FINES TO THE STATE. IN ADDITION, THE JOURNALISTS WERE ORDERED TO PAY TO HAVE THE VERDICT PRINTED IN THE CAMBODIA DAILY, RASMEI KAMPUCHEA AND KOH SANTEPHEAP NEWSPAPERS. FAILURE TO PAY THE FINES AND COST OF PRINTING THE VERDICT WOULD RESULT IN JAIL SENTENCES. 6. THE DECISION OF THE COURT WAS WIDELY CONDEMNED BY JOURNALISTS AND LEGAL EXPERTS, WHO QUESTIONED THE FAIRNESS OF THE PROCEEDINGS. EDITORS FROM THE CAMBODIA DAILY CHARGE THAT THE JUDGE APPLIED THE LAW SELECTIVELY, AND THAT SHE REFUSED TO ADMIT RELEVANT EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE DEFENSE, SUCH AS TAPE RECORDINGS THAT WOULD ALLEGEDLY HAVE PROVED THAT SENATOR BUNTHOUK DID INDEED MAKE THE STATEMENT THE PAPER ATTRIBUTED TO HER. THEY ALSO CLAIM THAT THE JUDGE WENT OUT AND OBTAINED EVIDENCE OF HER OWN, IN VIOLATION OF HER MANDATE. THE LAWYER FOR HOR NAMHONG WAS ALSO DISSATISFIED WITH THE AMOUNT OF THE PUNITIVE DAMAGES, AS THEY WERE SEEKING USD $1 MILLION. LAWYERS FOR BOTH SIDES HAVE STATED THEY WILL APPEAL THE RULING, AND HAVE UNTIL NOVEMBER 22, 2001, TO DO SO. (NOTE: THE CAMBODIA DAILY IS THE COUNTRY'S LEADING ENGLISH LANGUAGE NEWSPAPER, AND IS WIDELY READ BY POLITICAL AND CIVIL SOCIETY LEADERS. IT IS OWNED BY FORMER NEWSWEEK CORRESPONDENT AND AMERICAN CITIZEN BERNARD KRISHER, AND FUNCTIONS AS A NON-GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION WITH THE STATED GOALS OF UPGRADING THE SKILLS OF LOCAL JOURNALISTS AND STRENGTHENING FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. THE EDITOR OF THE PAPER TOLD EMBASSY THAT THEY ARE WILLING TO PAY FOR AN APPEAL IN ORDER TO PUBLICIZE THE CASE AND PROMOTE PRESS FREEDOM. END NOTE.) 7. COMMENT: THERE IS NO CLEAR PATTERN OF ABUSE OF ANTI- DEFAMATION LAWS AGAINST THE PRESS IN CAMBODIA. HOWEVER, JOURNALISTS ARE CONCERNED THAT THIS CASE COULD ESTABLISH A NEGATIVE PRECEDENT, IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT OR POWERFUL INDIVIDUALS WILL USE FEAR OF FINANCIAL RUIN TO KEEP THE PRESS FROM PUBLISHING EMBARRASSING STORIES. MANY TOP POLITICIANS AND GOVERNMENT LEADERS HAVE THE FINANCIAL MEANS TO BRING LAWSUITS AGAINST PUBLICATIONS, AND THE POWER TO INFLUENCE THE WEAK AND NOTORIOUSLY CORRUPT JUDICIAL SYSTEM IN THEIR FAVOR. MOST NEWSPAPERS, ON THE OTHER HAND, ARE ONLY MARGINALLY FINANCIALLY VIABLE EVEN UNDER THE BEST OF CIRCUMSTANCES, AND MAY FIND THEY MUST AVOID CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECTS OR RISK EXPENSIVE LAWSUITS THAT THEY CANNOT AFFORD. ARVIZU
Latest source of this page is cablebrowser-2, released 2011-10-04