Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Khmer Times/Taing Vida Monday, 20 June 2016
Two members of the opposition who were viciously beaten unconscious during a pro-Cambodian People’s Party (CPP) protest in front of the National Assembly last year have filed a complaint to the Phnom Penh Municipal Court over the sentences handed down to some of their attackers, saying the sentences were paltry compared with the crime.
On May 27, Judge Heng Sok Na charged Chay Sarith, 33, Mao Hoeun, 34, and Soth Vanny, 45, all members of Prime Minister Hun Sen’s personal bodyguard unit (BHQ), with committing “intentional acts of violence under aggravating circumstances and intentionally causing damage under aggravating circumstances” under articles 218 and 411 of the Penal Code.
According to the law, the charges carry a sentence of four years, but the judge suspended three years of the sentence, and with time served, the men will only spend a few months in prison.
Judge Na also ordered the three men to pay 40 million riel (about $10,000) altogether to both Nhay Chamroeun and Kong Saphea, the beaten politicians, and another 6 million riel (about $1,500) each to the state.
The lawyer for Mr. Chamroeun and Mr. Saphea, Choung Chou Ngy, told Khmer Times that the complaint was submitted to the court last Thursday, explaining that their main complaint was not with the charges, but the sentencing.
“The verdict was unacceptable as the criminal act was brutal, and the violence has adversely affected the reputation of my clients as politicians. The suspended sentence will allow the offenders to be released from prison,” he said.
Mr. Chou Ngy said his clients have asked the court for a tougher punishment for the three men and are demanding a total of 300 million riel (about $75,000) in compensation from them.
Municipal Court spokesman Ly Sophanna said the appeal is on-going via court procedure.
Heading off complaints of ruling party bias within the country’s court system, Mr. Sophanna said: “The Phnom Penh court case and verdict have been worked on independently.”
Mr. Sarith, Mr. Hoeun and Mr. Vanny were arrested on November 2 after being identified in videos dragging Mr. Chamroeun and Mr. Saphea out of their cars and beating them with a mob of protesters as they left the National Assembly.
Although video footage showed others also participating in the assault, authorities have only arrested the three men and claimed to be continuing the investigation into all those involved. No one else has been arrested or charged.
During a hearing last month, Mr. Sarith confessed to beating Mr. Saphea, albeit mildly he said, and added that at the time he did not know he was a member of the Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP).
He also denied damaging any cars or being involved in Mr. Chamroeun’s beating. He asked for a light punishment.
Human Rights Watch last month published the results of its detailed investigation into the beatings and the subsequent official inquiry of the case. The nearly 70-page report found that “the criminal process in the case seems to have been designed to cover-up, rather than uncover and shed light on, ultimate responsibility for the October 26 attack.”
Since their arrest, Cambodian People’s Party (CPP) officials and the accused have contended that the violence flared up spontaneously after the protest and after the politicians shouted insults from their cars at the crowd as they were leaving the National Assembly.
Government officials also initially maintained that the three men were not affiliated with the bodyguard unit. The defendants’ connection to the unit has since been established, but officials and the defendants continue to insist they were not under orders to attack the politicians.
At the trial, the three defendants contended they did not act “as a team” and had attended the protest of their own “volition.” As the HRW report notes, attempts by the prosecution to delve into the defendants’ BHQ affiliations have been stymied by the court.
Trial judges have said such questions are “outside the scope of the trial.”
“On multiple other occasions, the trial judges simply allowed the accused to declare that they would not answer such questions,” the authors wrote.
Clik here to view.
Khmer Times/Taing Vida Monday, 20 June 2016
Two members of the opposition who were viciously beaten unconscious during a pro-Cambodian People’s Party (CPP) protest in front of the National Assembly last year have filed a complaint to the Phnom Penh Municipal Court over the sentences handed down to some of their attackers, saying the sentences were paltry compared with the crime.
On May 27, Judge Heng Sok Na charged Chay Sarith, 33, Mao Hoeun, 34, and Soth Vanny, 45, all members of Prime Minister Hun Sen’s personal bodyguard unit (BHQ), with committing “intentional acts of violence under aggravating circumstances and intentionally causing damage under aggravating circumstances” under articles 218 and 411 of the Penal Code.
According to the law, the charges carry a sentence of four years, but the judge suspended three years of the sentence, and with time served, the men will only spend a few months in prison.
Judge Na also ordered the three men to pay 40 million riel (about $10,000) altogether to both Nhay Chamroeun and Kong Saphea, the beaten politicians, and another 6 million riel (about $1,500) each to the state.
The lawyer for Mr. Chamroeun and Mr. Saphea, Choung Chou Ngy, told Khmer Times that the complaint was submitted to the court last Thursday, explaining that their main complaint was not with the charges, but the sentencing.
“The verdict was unacceptable as the criminal act was brutal, and the violence has adversely affected the reputation of my clients as politicians. The suspended sentence will allow the offenders to be released from prison,” he said.
Mr. Chou Ngy said his clients have asked the court for a tougher punishment for the three men and are demanding a total of 300 million riel (about $75,000) in compensation from them.
Municipal Court spokesman Ly Sophanna said the appeal is on-going via court procedure.
Heading off complaints of ruling party bias within the country’s court system, Mr. Sophanna said: “The Phnom Penh court case and verdict have been worked on independently.”
Mr. Sarith, Mr. Hoeun and Mr. Vanny were arrested on November 2 after being identified in videos dragging Mr. Chamroeun and Mr. Saphea out of their cars and beating them with a mob of protesters as they left the National Assembly.
Although video footage showed others also participating in the assault, authorities have only arrested the three men and claimed to be continuing the investigation into all those involved. No one else has been arrested or charged.
During a hearing last month, Mr. Sarith confessed to beating Mr. Saphea, albeit mildly he said, and added that at the time he did not know he was a member of the Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP).
He also denied damaging any cars or being involved in Mr. Chamroeun’s beating. He asked for a light punishment.
Human Rights Watch last month published the results of its detailed investigation into the beatings and the subsequent official inquiry of the case. The nearly 70-page report found that “the criminal process in the case seems to have been designed to cover-up, rather than uncover and shed light on, ultimate responsibility for the October 26 attack.”
Since their arrest, Cambodian People’s Party (CPP) officials and the accused have contended that the violence flared up spontaneously after the protest and after the politicians shouted insults from their cars at the crowd as they were leaving the National Assembly.
Government officials also initially maintained that the three men were not affiliated with the bodyguard unit. The defendants’ connection to the unit has since been established, but officials and the defendants continue to insist they were not under orders to attack the politicians.
At the trial, the three defendants contended they did not act “as a team” and had attended the protest of their own “volition.” As the HRW report notes, attempts by the prosecution to delve into the defendants’ BHQ affiliations have been stymied by the court.
Trial judges have said such questions are “outside the scope of the trial.”
“On multiple other occasions, the trial judges simply allowed the accused to declare that they would not answer such questions,” the authors wrote.