Abstract
In August 1979 a trial in absentia was held against Pol Pot and Ieng Sary at the so-called People’s Revolutionary Tribunal in Phnom Penh. The trial was inconsistent with fair trial standards, namely the right to a proper defence. Ieng Sary was found guilty of genocide and sentenced to death. This raises the question, whether the indictment of the ECCC violated the principle of ne bis in idem. Further the question if Ieng Sary could benefit from a 1996 Royal pardon was decisive for the ECCC. The article gives an overview of the 1979 proceedings at the People’s Revolutionary Tribunal and analyzes the consequences for the trial against Ieng Sary at the ECCC. The author argues that Ieng Sary could be legitimately be indicted by the ECCC. Neither the principle of ne bis in idem nor the amnesty could shield Ieng Sary from prosecution.
Dr. jur. Frank Selbmann is Attorney-at-Law in Leipzig, Germany.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Judgment of the Revolutionary People’s Tribunal held in Phnom Penh from 15 to 19 August 1979, UN Doc. A 34/491, 20 September 1979.
- 2.
Law on the Outlawing of the ‘Democratic Kampuchea’ Group, 14 July 1994, available at http://www.eccc.gov.kh/en/documents/legal/law-outlaw-democratic-kampuchea-group (visited 15 June 2015).
- 3.
Royal Decree, NS RKT/0996/72, 14 September 1996, available at http://www.eccc.gov.kh/sites/default/files/legal-documents/pardon_for_ieng_sary.pdf (visited 15 June 2015).
- 4.
Ibid., Article 1.
- 5.
Fawthrop and Jarvis 2004, at 137.
- 6.
Menzel 2006, at 449.
- 7.
The arrest was affirmed few days later by the Provisional Detention Order, Nuon Chea and others (002/19-09-2007/ECCC-C11/1), Co-Investigating Judges, 19 September 2007.
- 8.
Closing Order, Nuon Chea and others (002/19-09-2007/ECCC-D427), Office of the Co-Investigating Judges, 15 September 2010.
- 9.
De Nike 2000.
- 10.
Ambach 2006, at 173–174.
- 11.
Provisional Detention Order, supra note 7, at § 7.
- 12.
Ibid., § 8, 10.
- 13.
Public Decision on Appeal Against Provisional Detention Order of Ieng Sary, Nuon Chea and others (002/909-2007/ECCC-C22/I/73), Pre-Trial Chamber, 17 October 2008, at § 53.
- 14.
Closing Order, supra note 8, at § 1332.
- 15.
Public Decision on Ieng Sary’s Appeal against the Closing Order, Nuon Chea and others (002/19-09-2007/ECCC-D427/1/30), Pre-Trial Chamber, 11 April 2011, § 163–175.
- 16.
Decision on Ieng Sary’s Rule 89 Preliminary Objections (ne bis in idem and amnesty and pardon), Nuon Chea and others (002/19-09-2007/ECCC-E51/15), Trial Chamber, 3 November 2011, § 30.
- 17.
Ibid., at § 31.
- 18.
Decision on Appeal against Trial Chamber’s Decision on Ieng Sary’s Rule 89 Preliminary Objection (ne bis in idem and amnesty and pardon), Nuon Chea and others (002/19-09-2007/ECCC-E51/15/1/2), Supreme Court Chamber, 20 March 2012.
- 19.
Ibid., Dissenting Opinion of judges Klonowiecka-Milart and Jayasinghe, § 3–5.
- 20.
See Foth 1979a, at 13.
- 21.
Dyrchs 2008, at 50.
- 22.
De Nike 2008, at 210.
- 23.
Foth1979b, at 3.
- 24.
Staadt 2009, at 23.
- 25.
Weinke 2002, at 343.
- 26.
See the detailed analysis in Selbmann 2011, at 459.
- 27.
Werle 2009, at 290.
- 28.
OG (High Court of the GDR) Judgment of 23 July 1963, in 17 Neue Justiz (1963) 449–512a.
- 29.
OG (High Court of the GDR) Judgment of 25 March 1966, in 20 Neue Justiz (1966) 193–206.
- 30.
- 31.
- 32.
Dirks 2006, at 330.
- 33.
Wieland 2003, at 115.
- 34.
Meseke 2005, at 67.
- 35.
For a more detailed overview see Selbmann 2011, at 456.
- 36.
Ibid. See also De Nike 2008, at 40, who interviewed Carlos Foth earlier than the author and came to the same conclusion.
- 37.
Decree Law No. 1, Establishment of People’s Revolutionary Tribunal at Phnom Penh to Try the Pol Pot Ieng Sary Clique for the Crime of Genocide, Doc. No. 1.01.
- 38.
See Civil Party Co Lawyers’ Joint Response to Appeal of Ieng Sary against the Provisional Detention Order, Nuon Chea and others (002/19-09-2007/ECCC-C22/I/35), Civil Party Co-Lawyers, 19 May 2008, § 24.
- 39.
Foth 1979a, at 13 f.
- 40.
See the protocols of the sessions of the UN Security Council UNSCOR, 2108 session, 11 January 1979, at 12 (Vietnam), S/PV/2108 (1979); UNSCOR, 2109 session; 11 January 1979, at 8 (GDR), S/PV/2109 (1979).
- 41.
Article 5(2) PRT-Law.
- 42.
Article 6(1) PRT-Law.
- 43.
Article 7 PRT-Law.
- 44.
De Nike 2000, Decree Law No. 4: Appointment of Presiding Judge and Alternate, Doc. No. 1.02.
- 45.
Mosyakov 2004, at 16–17.
- 46.
De Nike 2000, Presiding Judge, Decision on Trial Procedure at the Session on the Crime of Genocide of the Pol Pot – Ieng Sary Clique. Doc. No. 1.07.
- 47.
Foth 1979a, at 13.
- 48.
De Nike 2000, List of Invitees, Doc. No. 1.11a.
- 49.
Fawthrop and Jarvis 2004, at 43–44.
- 50.
Interview and written correspondence by the author with Carlos Foth.
- 51.
A. Bentoumi, International Association of Democratic Lawyers (Internationale Vereinigung Demokratischer Juristen), Report, Prozeß gegen Pol Pot und Ieng Sary, German translation for the East German General State Prosecutor, 15–19 August 1979 (on file with the author) at 5.
- 52.
Judgment of the PRT, supra note 1.
- 53.
- 54.
See Articles 333, 353, 362, 365 et seq. Code of Criminal Procedure of the Kingdom of Cambodia, Khmer-English-Translation, September 2008.
- 55.
Cour d’Assises de Paris, Judgment of 17 December 2010, Condreras et al., available at http://fidh.org/IMG/pdf/Arret_de_condamnation_17dec2010.pdf (visited 15 June 2015).
- 56.
See Ely Ould Dah v. France, App no 13113/03, ECtHR (17 March 2009). The question of the admissibility of a trial in absentia was not invoked by the applicant before the ECtHR.
- 57.
Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Köln, Judgment of 3 July 2007, 2 Ws 156/07, BeckRS 2007, 16795.
- 58.
Landgericht (Regional Court Aachen), Judgment of 23 March 2010, 52 Ks 45 Js 18-83 10/09, BeckRS 2010, 14176.
- 59.
Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice), Decision of 1 December 2010, 2 StR 420/10; with reference to Bundesgerichtshof, decision of 25 October 2010 in the case of Scheunengraber, 1 StR 57/10, in Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (2011), 1014–1018 related to an in absentia conviction for war crimes by the a military court in La Spezia, which did not block a conviction by German courts. In the case of Boere a constitutional complaint was dismissed by the Federal Constitutional Court, Bundesverfassungsgericht, decision of 15 December 2011, 2 BvR 148/11, in Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (2012), 1202–1205.
- 60.
Marauhn 1997, at 766.
- 61.
Mbenge v Zaire, Comm. No. 16/1977 (25 March 1983), § 14.1.
- 62.
General Comment No. 13, Equality before the courts and the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent court established by law, 13 April 1984, § 11.
- 63.
Sejdovic v. Italy App no 56581/00 (1 March 2006), § 89.
- 64.
Lala v. the Netherlands App no 14861/89 (22 September 1994), § 33.
- 65.
Geyseghem v. Belgium App no 26103/95 (21 January 1999), § 35.
- 66.
Sejdovic v. Italy, supra note 63, § 82; Krombach v. France, App no 29731/96 (13 February 2001), § 85.
- 67.
Medenica v. Switzerland App no 20491/92 (14 June 2001), § 56–57.
- 68.
Article 12 IMTSt; IMT, Judgment of 1 October 1946, The Trial of German Major War Criminals, Proceedings of the International Military Tribunal sitting at Nuremberg, Germany, 14 November 1945 - 1 October 1946, Vol. 22, at 587.
- 69.
Rule 80(B) ICTY RPE.
- 70.
Sentencing Judgment (IT 95–9/2-S), Simić, 17 October 2002, § 8.
- 71.
Judgment, Nahimana, Barayagwiza, Ngeze (ICTR-99–52-A), 28 November 2007, § 139.
- 72.
Article 63(1) ICCSt.
- 73.
See Decision on Accused Ieng Sary’s Fitness to Stand Trial, Nuon Chea and others (002/19-07-2002/ECCC-E238/9) Trial Chamber, 26 November 2012, § 14, 32.
- 74.
Ibid., at § 44, see Internal Rule 81(5).
- 75.
Article 22(3) STLSt.
- 76.
Trechsel 2005, at 253.
- 77.
Sejdovic v. Italy, supra note 66, § 91–95; Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, Resolution (75)11 on the Criteria Governing Proceedings held in Absence of the Accused, 21 May 1975 § 1, 5; Mbenge v Zaire, supra note 61, § 14.1.
- 78.
Trechsel 2005, 254; Council of Europe, ibid., § 9.
- 79.
See http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-4&chapter=4&lang=en (visited 15 June 2015). However, the ICCPR was signed by the Khmer Rouge on 17 October 1980.
- 80.
De Nike 2000, Order No. 2, Presiding Judge Order to Appear at Trial to Pol Pot, Doc. No. 1.16; Order to Appear at Trial to Ieng Sary, Doc. No. 1.16bis.
- 81.
Ibid., Bailiff, Record of Notification of Summons the Fugitive Suspect Pol Pot, Doc. No. 1.17; Bailiff, Record of Notification of Summons the Fugitive Suspect Ieng Sary, Doc. No. 1.18.
- 82.
Quigley 2004, at 9.
- 83.
Mbenge v Zaire, supra note 61, § 14.2.
- 84.
Decision on Appointment of Council and order on further Trial Proceedings, Karadžić (IT-95-5/18-T), Trial Chamber, 5 November 2009, § 25.
- 85.
De Nike 2000, Decision of the Presiding Judge, Appointment of Defence Lawyers, Doc. No. 1.11.
- 86.
Quigley 2004, at 11.
- 87.
In advance of the trial Carlos Foth prepared a document with the title Ziele und Aufgaben der Verteidigung (Goals and Tasks of the Defence). The documents outlines, which arguments should be brought by the defence and dismissed by the court, see De Nike 2008, at 41–43, Selbmann 2011, at 458–459. The script was not used in trial. But some of the arguments developed by Foth were raised by the defence counsel, namely the alleged support of the People’s Republic of China for the Khmer Rouge.
- 88.
In the case of Dusko Tadić, the first trial before the ICTY, one of the arguments raised by the defence was that the tribunal had no jurisdiction, see Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, Tadić (IT-94-1), Appeals Chamber, 2 October 1995, § 9.
- 89.
This is another argument regularly brought by the defence in international criminal proceedings, who act properly, see Decision on Interlocutory Appeal of the Trial Chamber’s Decision on the Assignment of Defence Counsel, Milošević (IT-02-54-AR73.7), Appeals Chamber, 1 November 2004.
- 90.
- 91.
De Nike 2000, Closing Argument of Hope R. Stevens, Doc. No. 3.03 a.
- 92.
Ibid.
- 93.
Ibid., Closing Argument of Yuos Por, Doc. No 3.03b; Closing Argument of Dith Munty, Doc. No. 3.03c.
- 94.
Judgment, supra note 1, at 22.
- 95.
See Fawthrop and Jarvis 2004, 40–41.
- 96.
De Nike 2000, Doc. No. 2.1.18; see Public Decision on Ieng Sary’s Appeal against the Closing Order, supra note 15, at § 171.
- 97.
De Nike 2000, Doc. No 1.07.
- 98.
Public Decision on Ieng Sary’s Appeal against the Closing Order, supra note 15, at § 167, 169.
- 99.
De Nike 2000, Doc. No. 1.01bis. The statement reads as follows: ‘It is clear that the Pol-Pot Ieng Sary clique committed the crime of genocide not only a particular ethnic group or against a particular social stratum of the population, but against the Kampuchean people as a whole.’
- 100.
See Fawthrop and Jarvis 2004, at 42 and 279.
- 101.
De Nike 2000, Doc. No. 2.1.1.06.
- 102.
Ibid., Doc. No. 2.4.03c.
- 103.
Public Decision on Ieng Sary’s Appeal against the Closing Order, supra note 15, at § 170.
- 104.
Quigley 2004, at 8.
- 105.
- 106.
Drost 1959, at 86.
- 107.
- 108.
- 109.
Article 15(2) ICCPR.
- 110.
Werle 2009, at 37.
- 111.
Bassiouni 2008, at 99.
- 112.
Selbmann 2003, at 148.
- 113.
- 114.
Email from Carlos Foth to the author dated 29 September 2009.
- 115.
Judgment, supra note 1, at 29.
- 116.
Ibid., at 6 and 29.
- 117.
Ibid. at 10–12.
- 118.
See Closing Order, supra note 8, at § 221 et seq.; Severance Order Pursuant To Internal Rule 89ter, Nuon Chea and others (002/19-09-2007/ECCC-E124), Trial Chamber, 22 September 2011, § 5, overruled by SCC’s Decision on the Co-Prosecutors’ Immediate Appeal of the Trial Chamber’s Decision Concerning The Scope Of Case 002/1, Nuon Chea and others (002/19-09-2007/ECCC-E163/5/1/13), Supreme Court Chamber, 8 February 2013.
- 119.
Judgment, Case 002/01, Nuon Chea and others (002/19-09-2007/ECCC-E313), Trial Chamber, 7 August 2014, § 6 in footnote 21.
- 120.
Ibid., § 152.
- 121.
See also Quigley 2004, at 8.
- 122.
Etcheson 2014.
- 123.
Fawthrop and Jarvis 2004, at 42.
- 124.
See also De Nike 2000, at 43.
- 125.
This is the conclusion of Günther Wieland, former prosecutor in the office of the Eastern German General State Prosecutor, Wieland 1995, at 115.
- 126.
However the trial does not fulfill the criteria of a “show trial”, see Selbmann and Wesemann 2010, at 122–124.
- 127.
Conway 2003, at 217.
- 128.
US Supreme Court, Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U.S. 141 (1962), 19 March 1962.
- 129.
Eser and Burchard 2006, at 501 et seq.
- 130.
Conway 2003, at 227.
- 131.
For the ECHR see Protocol No. 7, Explanatory Report, § 27, available at http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Reports/Html/117.htm (visited 15 June 2015).
- 132.
Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court), Decision of 31 March 1987, 2 BvM 2/86, BVerfGE 75, 1–34, at 23; decision of 15 December 2011, supra note 59, at 1203.
- 133.
Kroker 2012, at 58.
- 134.
Decision on Ieng Sary’s Rule 89 Preliminary Objection, supra note 16, at § 36.
- 135.
See also Public Decision on Ieng Sary’s Appeal, supra note 15, at § 124.
- 136.
Ieng Sary’s Appeal against the Closing Order, Nuon Chea and others (02/19-09-2007/ECCC-OCIJ-D427/1/6), Ieng Sary Defence, 15 October 2010, § 8–20 and 33.
- 137.
Public Decision on Ieng Sary’s Appeal, supra note 15, at § 131; Decision on Ieng Sary’s Rule 89 Preliminary Objection, supra note 16, at § 32.
- 138.
- 139.
Provisional Detention Order, supra note 7, § 8.
- 140.
- 141.
This is also the underlying principle of Article 54 Schengen Convention.
- 142.
In the case of Ieng Sary the death sentence would have been converted to a prison sentence after the abolition of the death penalty in Cambodia, see Public Decision on Ieng Sary’s Appeal, supra note 15, at § 192; Schulz 2009, at 299.
- 143.
- 144.
Article 365 et seq. CCP.
- 145.
Luftglass 2004, at 950–951.
- 146.
- 147.
Public Decision on Ieng Sary’s Appeal against the Closing Order, supra note 15, at 194.
- 148.
Ibid., at § 200.
- 149.
The translation on the website of the ECCC uses the word ‘pardon’, see http://www.eccc.gov.kh/sites/default/files/legal-documents/pardon_for_ieng_sary.pdf (visited 15 June 2015), the PTC uses the word ‘amnesty’, Public Decision on Ieng Sary’s Appeal against the Closing Order, supra note 15, at § 188.
- 150.
Decision on Ieng Sary’s Rule 89 Preliminary Objection, supra note 16, at § 11.
- 151.
Ibid., at § 29.
- 152.
Ibid., at 38–39.
- 153.
Judgment Furundžija (IT-95-17/1-T), Trial Chamber, 10 December 1998, at § 155.
- 154.
General Comment No. 20: Article 7 (Prohibition of Torture, or Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment), 10 March 1992, §15; see also Rodriguez v. Uruguay, Comm No 322/1988, CCPR/C/51/D/322/1988, 9 August 1994, § 12.4.
- 155.
Ely Ould Dah v. France, supra note 56, at 16–17.
- 156.
Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), International Court of Justice, 20 July 2012, ICJ Reports 2012, 422–463, at 456.
- 157.
Decision on Ieng Sary’s Rule 89 Preliminary Objection, supra note 16, at § 49.
- 158.
Decision to Challenge Jurisdiction, Kallon (SCSL-2004-15-AR-2) and Kamara (SCSL-2004-16-AR-2), Appeals Chamber, 13 March 2004, §§ 71–74.
- 159.
- 160.
- 161.
Decision on Ieng Sary’s Rule 89 Preliminary Objection, supra note 16, at § 54–55.
- 162.
Ibid., at § 36.
References
Ambach P (2006) Die Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia—endlich Gerechtigkeit? Das lange Tauziehen zwischen den Vereinten Nationen und Kambodscha um wirkungsvolle internationale Strafgerichtsbarkeit. Humanitäres Völkerrecht—Informationsschriften 19:168–179
Ambos K (2009) The Legal Framework of Transitional Justice: A Systematic Study with a Special Focus on the Role of the ICC. In: Ambos K, Large J, Wierda M (eds) Building a Future on Peace and Justice, Studies on Transitional Justice, Conflict Resolution and Development, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 19–103
Arendt H (2006) Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. Penguin Group, New York
Bassiouni M C (1992–1993) Human Rights in the Context of Criminal Justice: Identifying International Procedural Protections and Equivalent Protection in National Constitutions. Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law 3:235–297
Bassiouni M C (2008) Principles of Legality in International and Comparative Criminal Law. In: Bassiouni M C (ed) International Criminal Law, Vol. 1, Sources, Subjects and Contents, 3rd edn, Martin Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, pp 73–105
Bentoumi A (1979) Prozeß gegen Pol Pot und Ieng Sary, Report, International Association of Democratic Lawyers (Internationale Vereinigung Demokratischer Juristen), German translation for the East German General State Prosecutor
Bevers J (2009) Der Mann hinter Adenauer, Hans Globkes Aufstieg vom NS-Juristen zur Grauen Eminenz der Bonner Republik. Christoph Links Verlag, Berlin
Boyle D (2002) Establishing the Responsibility of the Khmer Rouge Leadership for International Crimes. Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 5:167–218
Conway G (2003) Ne Bis in Idem in International Law. International Criminal Law Review 3:217–244
De Nike H (2000) Genocide’s Orphan: The 1979 Trial of Pol Pot and Ieng Sary. In: Ewald U and Turković K (eds) Large-Scale Victimisation as a Potential Source of Terrorist Activities, IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 208–213
De Nike H (2008) East Germany’s Legal Advisor to the 1979 Tribunal in Cambodia, Searching the Truth. Magazine of the Documentation Centre of Cambodia, Phnom Penh
De Nike H, Quigley J, Robinson K J (2004) Genocide in Cambodia, Documents from the Trial of Pol Pot and Ieng Sary. University of Pennsylvania Press Philadelphia
Dirks C (2006) Die Verbrechen der Anderen, Auschwitz und der Auschwitzprozess der DDR: Das Verfahren gegen den KZ-Arzt Dr. Horst Fischer. Ferdinand Schöningh Verlag, Paderborn
Drost P (1959) The Crime of State, Book II, Genocide—United Nations Legislation on International Criminal Law. A.W. Sythoff, Leyden
Dyrchs S (2008) Das hybride Khmer-Rouge-Tribunal: Entstehung, Entwicklung und rechtliche Grundlagen. Peter Lang Verlag, Frankfurt
Eser A and Burchard C (2006) Interlokales ne bis in idem in Europa?—Von westfälischem Souveränitätspathos zu europäischem Gemeinschaftsdenken. In: Derra H-J (ed) Freiheit, Sicherheit und Recht: Festschrift für Jürgen Meyer zum 70. Geburtstag, NOMOS, Baden-Baden, pp 499–524
Etcheson C (2005) After the Killing Fields- Lessons from the Cambodian Genocide. Texas Tech University Press, Lubbock
Etcheson C (2014) The Challenges of Transitional Justice in Cambodia. www.mei.edu/content/challenges-transitional-justice-cambodia. Accessed 15 June 2015
Fawthrop T, Jarvis H (2004) Getting away with Genocide—Elusive Justice and the Khmer Rouge Tribunal. Pluto Press, London
Foth C (1979a) Abschlussbericht zur Ausführung des Auftrages vom 22. Juli bis 19. August 1979 in Vietnam und Kambodscha an das Zentralkomitee der SED. Bundesarchiv (Federal Archive) DP 3/2228
Foth C (1979b) Überlegungen zu weiteren Maßnahmen in Auswertung des Prozesses gegen Pol Pot und Ieng Sary. Bundesarchiv (Federal Archive), DP 3/2228
Heintze H J (2004) Die Verbrechen der Roten Khmer und die Völkermord-Konvention. Zeitschrift für Genozidforschung 5:114–126
Klein KM (2006) Bringing the Khmer Rouge to Justice: The Challenges and Risks Facing the Joint Tribunal in Cambodia. Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights 4:549–566
Kroker P (2012) Zivilparteien in Völkerstrafverfahren—Eine Analyse der Opferbeteiligung an den Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin
Lippman M (2008) Genocide. In: Bassioni M C (ed) International Criminal Law Vol. 1 Sources, Subjects and Contents, 3rd edn, Martin Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, pp 403–435
Luftglass S (2004) Crossroads in Cambodia: The United Nation’s Responsibility to Withdraw Involvement from the Establishment of a Cambodian Tribunal to Prosecute the Khmer Rouge. Virginia Law Review 90:893–964
Marauhn T (1997) The Right of the Accused to Be Tried in His or Her Presence. In: Weissbrodt D, Wolfrum R (eds) The Right to a Fair Trial, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, pp 763–776
Menzel J (2006) Ein Strafgericht für die Khmer Rouge. Herausforderung für Kambodscha und das Völkerstrafrecht. Verfassung und Recht in Übersee 39:425–456
Meseke S (2005) Der Tatbestand der Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit nach dem Römischen Statut des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofes. Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, Berlin
Mosyakov D (2004) The Khmer Rouge and the Vietnamese Communists: A History of their Relations as told in the Soviet Archives’, GSP Working Paper 15. www.yale.edu/cgp/resources.html. Accessed 15 June 2015
Quigley J (2004) Introduction. In: De Nike H, Quigley J, Robinson KJ (eds) Genocide in Cambodia, Documents from the Trial of Pol Pot and Ieng Sary. University of Pennsylvania Press Philadelphia, pp 1–18
Robinson D (2003) Serving the Interests of Justice: Amnesties, Truth Commissions and the ICC. European Journal of International Law 14:481–505
Schabas W (2001a) Problems of International Codification—Were the Atrocity in Cambodia and Kosovo Genocide? New England Law Review 35:287–301
Schabas W (2001b) Was it Genocide? Human Rights Quarterly 23:470–477
Scheffer D (2008) The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia. In: Bassiouni M C (ed) International Criminal Law, Vol. 3, International Enforcement, 3rd edn, Martin Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden
Schulz S (2009) Transitional Justice und hybride Gerichte, Zur strafrechtlichen Verfolgung von völkerstrafrechtlichen Verbrechen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des kambodschanischen Sondergerichts, Extraordinary Chambers. LIT Verlag, Berlin
Selbmann F (2003) Der Tatbestand des Genozids im Völkerstrafrecht. Leipziger Universitätsverlag, Leipzig
Selbmann F and Wesemann D (2010) Der Pol Pot-Ieng Sary-Prozess revisited—Anmerkung zum Prozess gegen führende Rote Khmer im Jahr 1979. Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik (2010) 5:116–124
Selbmann F (2011) Die Rolle der Generalstaatsanwaltschaft der DDR im Prozess gegen Pol Pot und Ieng Sary im Jahr 1979. Neue Justiz 65:454–460
Staadt J (2009) Furchtbare Juristen des SED-Staates. Zur Rolle der Generalstaatsanwaltschaft—Teil I. Zeitschrift des Forschungsverbundes SED-Staat 25:22–34
Trechsel S (2005) Human Rights in Criminal Proceedings. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Weinke A (2002), Die Verfolgung von NS-Tätern im geteilten Deutschland: Vergangenheitsbewältigungen 1949—1969 oder eine deutsch-deutsche Beziehungsgeschichte im Kalten Krieg. Ferdinand Schöningh Verlag, Paderborn
Werle G (2009) Principles of International Criminal Law, 2nd edn. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Wieland G (1995) Die Nürnberger Prinzipien im Spiegel von Gesetzgebung und Spruchpraxis sozialistischer Staaten. In: Hankel G and Stuby G (eds) Strafgerichte gegen Menschheitsverbrechen, Zum Völkerstrafrecht 50 Jahre nach den Nürnberger Prozessen, Hamburger Edition, Hamburg, pp 98–123
Wieland G (2003) Die Ahndung von NS-Verbrechen in Ostdeutschland. Neue Justiz 57:113–118
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Selbmann, F. (2016). The 1979 Trial of the People’s Revolutionary Tribunal and Implications for ECCC. In: Meisenberg, S., Stegmiller, I. (eds) The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia. International Criminal Justice Series, vol 6. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-105-0_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-105-0_4
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-104-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-105-0
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)
