The Human Rights Committee this morning concluded its consideration of the third report of Cambodia on how it implements the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with Committee Experts raising issues concerning freedom of expression and discriminatory COVID-19 prevention measures.
A Committee Expert stated that the situation in the State party regarding freedom of the press was at crisis levels. Free expression had been systematically violated by the closure of multiple media outlets, blocking of legitimate news Web sites, and the ongoing use of laws to silence journalists and citizens. What was the procedure for blocking or suspending a Web site, and in which law was it laid out? Would the State party make a commitment to refrain from further criminalising criticism of the government? Another Committee Expert cited allegations that the “Law on Preventive Measures against the Spread of COVID-19 and Other Serious and Dangerous Communicable Diseases” was a weapon used by the State party to repress opponents of the current regime. More than 700 people, the Expert said, had been arbitrarily arrested between March and October 2021 for “intentionally obstructing” the enforcement of COVID-19 measures. Did the State party plan to amend or repeal the COVID-19 law?
In the ensuing discussion, the delegation said that the Cambodian Constitution recognized the freedom of expression in the press. There was no violation of freedom of expression on the Internet. However, the State blocked Internet sites that threatened the security of the State and individuals’ dignity. The State’s actions were not a breach of the freedom of expression, but were done to protect society and uphold peace. The Ministry of Information had the right to grant, suspend and revoke the license of media outlets. In response to questions about its COVID-19 law, the delegation said Cambodia’s COVID-19 law was a valuable legal tool for defence of the right to life, health, and social security. The sanction mechanism in Cambodia was limited compared with other countries. Penalties were not harsher in Cambodia than in other countries. People who had contracted COVID-19 did not have the right to privacy. It was inappropriate to connect the measure of tracking infected persons with privacy violations. No one had been punished for not downloading the tracking app.
Chin Malin, Cambodia Human Rights Committee Vice-President, and head of the delegation, said that Cambodia had endured a long civil war and internal armed conflicts, and it was only recently that the country had obtained peace and stability. Thus, Cambodia understood fully the true value of human rights. The promotion and protection of human rights was one of the Government’s most important tasks and it also constituted a cornerstone in Cambodian national and foreign policy. The goal of the Government policy on human rights was to ensure full respect for Cambodia’s international obligations on human rights.
In concluding remarks, Mr. Malin said that discussions had addressed many important areas of concern, including the right to life, deprivation of liberty, the right to freedom of expression and assembly. Change took time, so Cambodia would act immediately to facilitate change and improve the human rights situation.
Photini Pazartzis, Committee Chairperson, in concluding remarks, welcomed the measures that Cambodia had taken in the reporting period to combat corruption, violence against women, trafficking, torture, and reduce overcrowding in prisons. The Committee understood the State’s idea of pluralism, but the Committee supported pluralism that allowed for discussion and disagreement. She expressed hope that the discussion would help to intensify the efforts that Cambodia was taking to promote and protect human rights, particularly civil and political rights.
The delegation of Cambodia was made up of representatives of the Cambodia Human Rights Committee; Ministry of Labour and Vocational Training; Ministry of Information; Ministry of Women Affairs; Ministry of Interior; and the Permanent Mission of Cambodia to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
The Committee will issue its concluding observations and recommendations on the report of Cambodia at the end of its one hundred and thirty-fourth session, which concludes on 25 March. Those, and other documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, will be available on the session’s webpage. The webcast of the Committee’s public meetings can be accessed at https://webtv.un.org/.
The Committee is next scheduled to meet in public at 3 p.m. on Friday, 18 March to hear the progress report on follow-up to concluding observations, followed by a progress report on follow-up to views.
Report
The Committee has before it the third periodic report of Cambodia (CCPR/C/KHM/3).
Presentation of the Report
CHIN MALIN, Secretary of State of the Ministry of Justice and Vice President of the Cambodia Human Rights Committee, and head of the delegation, said that Cambodia had endured a long civil war and internal armed conflicts, and it was only recently that the country had obtained peace and stability. Thus, Cambodia understood fully the true value of human rights. The promotion and protection of human rights was one of the Government’s most important tasks and it also constituted a cornerstone in Cambodian national and foreign policy. The goal of the Government policy on human rights was to ensure full respect for Cambodia’s international obligations on human rights.
Cambodia’s will to promote human rights was demonstrated by its ratification and accession to eight out of the nine international human rights treaties. To promote and protect human rights, the State party was cooperating with relevant domestic and international stakeholders. The Government had introduced necessary measures, including social, economic, health, administrative and legal measures, to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Those measures were not intended to restrict the rights and freedoms of citizens, but to protect citizens’ lives and public health. Penalties were in place to prevent the spread of COVID-19, but they were lighter than those in Europe or Asia. Only 115 people had been sent to court for violations, and only 30 of those people were detained for serious violations.
A draft Law on Establishment of the National Human Rights Institution had been finalised, and was being assessed with national and international experts, and international human rights institutions. The public was also allowed to submit comments on the law. Public officials who violated the law were suitably punished. That stance was in line with the Prime Minister’s approach to reforming public institutions and holding officials to account. Consistent statistics on disciplinary action and sentencing were recorded by relevant institutions and made public.
Four of the seven cases before the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) dealing with human rights abuses occurring during the Khmer Rouge regime had been completed. Cambodia had worked hard to resolve the issue of overcrowded prisons, addressing the issue with measures such as campaigns to resolve the backlog of court cases, suspensions of sentences and pretrial release orders. It had also introduced measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 within prisons, such as restrictions on visitations, release of detainees who committed minor offenses, and expedited vaccinations.
There was no violation of freedom of expression on the Internet in Cambodia. Media companies whose licenses had been revoked were using the global COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse to spread intimidation, causing civil unrest. Freedom of the press and freedom of expression did not mean freedom to insult, to fake information or to defame. In a recent case, environmental activists had been arrested because they had disseminated false information and incited violence online, not because they were activists. The Law on Associations and Non-Governmental Organizations safeguarded the right to freedom of establishing associations and non-governmental organizations. 500 representatives of civil society organizations had proposed to amend 14 articles of the law, and those were being considered.
Peaceful assembly was also guaranteed by the Constitution, while assembly and protest conducted without notifying and cooperating with the authorities violated security, safety and public health measures. In cases such as the illegal protests held at Naga World, protesters were held responsible before the applicable law.
Cambodia adhered to and respected the principles of pluralist liberal democracy, and gave its citizens full freedom to vote. The July 2018 election was held freely, correctly, and fairly, as would elections planned for June 2022.
Hearings of the case of Mr Kem Sokha, who was arrested on 3 September 2017 in connection with conspiracy with a foreign power to overthrow the legitimate government in Cambodia, had been suspended due to COVID-19 measures, but had since resumed. The length of deliberations was comparable to that of developed countries. The Committee should examine both the positive trends and the difficulties faced in promoting human rights in Cambodia.
Questions by Committee Experts
A Committee Expert noted the State’s troubled history and challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and commended the State’s commitment to promoting human rights. The Expert assured the delegation that records and methods of work of the Committee were public, and that the Committee’s work would be transparent and would take into account a number of sources.
The Expert began by asking whether domestic courts had invoked the Covenant. Did national laws take precedence in cases where there might be conflicts? Did the State party plan to harmonise domestic laws with the Covenant, to ensure that there were no conflicts? There was significant under-representation of women in leadership and decision-making roles, extensive stigma and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons, systemic exclusion of the Vietnamese community in Cambodia, and significant disadvantages faced by persons with disabilities. What was the State party doing to tackle those issues?
Did the State party intend to commit to legislative reform to provide equal pay for men and women for comparable work? Did the State party intend to modify legislation to allow the Khmer Krom to acquire identity papers, citizenship, and recognition of their rights to land? Were there measures planned to sensitise the public around sexual or gender identity issues and eliminate discrimination and violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons? Would the State party revisit its position against the adoption of comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation?
Another Committee Expert noted the long delay in establishing a national human rights institution, and asked for details about the status of the establishment of that institution and a timeline for when the institution would be established. Which civil society groups had been consulted? How would the State party ensure that civil society’s views were reflected in the draft law, and that the institution would comply with the Paris Principles?
On corruption, the Expert noted that the 2010 Anti-Corruption Law established the Anti-Corruption Unit, an investigative team that conducted anti-corruption investigations in all sectors. What was the current status of investigations of public officials for alleged corruption? Of 330 complaints filed in 2019, how many public officials were tried for corruption, how many were found guilty, and what consequences did they face? Why were public officials’ declarations of assets treated as confidential, and how did the State party confirm that those were accurate? What action had been taken against the nine public officials who had not declared their assets? The Anti-Corruption Unit routinely harassed human rights defenders and political opposition by levying fabricated corruption charges. What steps were being taken to ensure that investigations by the Anti-Corruption Unit were legitimate, independent, and not used to harass human rights defenders?
There had also been numerous reports of corruption in land-related issues. What steps were being taken to effectively eliminate corruption that allowed and encouraged illegal logging operations? How would the State party effectively investigate and prosecute public officials for land-grabbing? What steps had been taken to investigate and punish corruption in granting development rights, such as in the “ING City” case?
Another Committee Member noted that Cambodia had not declared a state of emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. What were the requirements for declaring a state of emergency, and had it been necessary to deal with the pandemic? To what extent were those restrictions compatible with the principles of international law?
How did the State party respond to allegations that its “Law on Preventive Measures against the Spread of COVID-19 and Other Serious and Dangerous Communicable Diseases” was a weapon used by the State party to repress opponents of the current regime? The Expert said that the law was too severe and restricted individual freedoms, and asked when the State party would consider revising or repealing the law.
Another Expert asked for information on the measures taken to address human rights violations that occurred in the 1990s and punish those responsible.
The Extraordinary Chambers in the Court of Cambodia had terminated four cases related to human rights abuses since the previous review in 2015, as it was not an appropriate forum to determine criminal liability. What measures had the State party taken for the victims of crimes allegedly committed by those accused and for Cambodian society in general? Did the State party plan to try them before a domestic court?
The Expert also raised the issue of right to life, asking for information on the number of investigations, prosecutions and convictions for the killings of opposition leaders, human rights defenders, and journalists since 2015 and the sentences imposed on those who were found guilty. What measures had the State party taken to protect these groups?
Another Committee Expert welcomed the policy measures taken as part of the Second National Action Plan on the Prevention of Violence against Women (2014-2018). What priority issues had been reflected in the Third National Action Plan of 2019? How did it intend to address societal tolerance of violence against women and public officials’ victim-blaming practices?
The Expert expressed concerns that the 2005 Law on the Prevention of Domestic Violence and Protection of Victims did not guarantee adequate protections for unmarried, dating, or other cohabiting persons. What measures had the State party taken to respond to these protection gaps? Did it plan to review the law? Why had the State party not been able to provide data on complaints, investigations, prosecutions, and convictions for violence against women?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said that the law on the state of emergency did not jeopardise human rights. The law was in line with international standards, and similar to those implemented in other countries. The law would be implemented when an incident occurred that threatened public security, or when a health crisis occurred. The measure was indispensable for protecting the health and security of Cambodian people. In the event of a national security incident, the use of martial law was also permitted. The state of emergency would be removed when there was no threat. Currently, the COVID-19 pandemic was under control, so there was no need to issue a state of emergency.
Cambodia’s COVID-19 law was a valuable legal tool for defence of the right to life, health, and social security. The sanction mechanism in Cambodia was limited compared with other countries. Penalties were not harsher in Cambodia than in other countries. People who had contracted COVID-19 did not have the right to privacy. It was inappropriate to connect the measure of tracking infected persons with privacy violations. No one had been punished for not downloading the tracking app.
The draft law on Access to Information was being reviewed by a technical working group, which was made up of Government officials, United Nations and non-governmental organization representatives, and civil society representatives from various sectors. The draft law was recognized by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). It was hoped that the draft law would be submitted for approval as soon as possible. Cambodia would be the fifth country in the region to introduce such a law.
Regarding harassment of journalists, the delegation stated that the freedom of the press was guaranteed under the Constitution. The Government had removed from the Criminal Code a clause related to information. No person could be arrested for expressing an opinion. Article 10 of the Press Law stipulated that all persons shown in media had the right to request the retraction of their images, and to sue media organizations for defamation. Complaints regarding freedom of speech were dealt with by authorities.
No journalists had been killed for political reasons in the past 20 years. The Government condemned any attack on the freedom of the press and acts of violence against journalists, and was working to protect journalists’ rights. Some incidents had occurred because journalists had not taken appropriate precautions when entering areas of combat. From 1994 to 2020, there had been 17 cases of attacks against journalists reported, and prosecutions were issued in each case. The Government rejected the allegation that attacks against journalists were systematic.
The delegation stated that the third national action plan to prevent violence against women had established a roadmap for public and private sectors to respond to and prevent violence against women. The plan was adopted after consultation at the national and sub-national levels, including with non-governmental organizations and women victims of violence, and female workers from a wide range of sectors. The implementation of the former national plan had led to a decrease in the number of women experiencing violence. A media code for reporting on and portraying violence against women had also been implemented in 2017.
Violence against women and domestic violence was prohibited in Cambodian law. To prevent violence against women, the Government had increased the budget for legal aid for victims and support mechanisms. The State had planned to review the law on domestic violence in 2019, but due to the pandemic, those deliberations were postponed to 2022.
There was a legal policy governing the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons, and the Government had conducted awareness campaigns about the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons. Homosexual marriage was not legally permitted, but work was being done to encourage support for legalizing homosexual marriage.
The first draft law on the establishment of a national human rights institution had been finalised based on the Paris Principles and in consultation with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, among others. The Cambodian Human Rights Committee had also called for public comment on the law. Civil society groups had rejected on political grounds an invitation to offer feedback. In 2021, consultations with civil society groups continued. Submission of the law was planned for early 2023.
Vietnamese persons had the right to register as immigrants in Cambodia. According to the 2017 census, there were over 48,000 Vietnamese families and 180,000 Vietnamese living in Cambodia. There were 69,000 Vietnamese holding long-term residency permits, 76,000 Vietnamese with short-term permits and 34,000 who had no residency permits.
Any child born from a foreign father and mother living legally in Cambodia was entitled to Cambodian nationality. The Government valued the human rights of the Khmer Krom people, and those rights were protected in the Constitution. Most Khmer Krom people had Cambodian identification. While tens of thousands of Khmer Krom people had Khmer identification cards, those identification cards did not guarantee Cambodian citizenship. Khmer people needed to submit documentation proving that they were born in Cambodia or fulfilled the necessary provisions to obtain citizenship.
Questions by Committee Experts
A Committee Expert noted that certain ethnic minorities had lived in Cambodia for several decades, but did not have identification papers, and as such did not have access to basic services. Would the State party consider implementing anti-discrimination legislation to protect the rights of minorities?
On torture, the Expert noted that the Criminal Code did prohibit torture, but the act was undefined, creating loopholes. In particular, there were reports of widespread torture in places of detention. Would the State party revisit its position and enact legislation prohibiting torture which more clearly defined the practice? How many investigations of torture had it undertaken, how many perpetrators of torture had been identified, and what accountability processes had such persons faced? What measures would be taken to address the problem?
On freedom of expression, the Expert stated that the situation in the State party was at crisis levels. Free expression had been systematically violated, in particular by the closure of multiple media outlets, blocking of multiple news websites, and the ongoing use of criminal and civil laws to intimidate, terrorise and ultimately silence journalists and citizens. Some media outfits targeted included the Cambodia Daily, an award-winning newspaper renowned for having exposed a number of corruption scandals, and the independent Phnom Penh Post. Many independent journalists had also been criminalised for the exercise of their right to expression, and faced severe penalties including prolonged periods of pre-trial detention and imprisonment.
How was the State’s targeting of independent media and journalists compatible with international human rights law and its obligation under the Covenant to ensure the freedom of expression rights? Were media standards clearly defined? What was the procedure for blocking or suspending a website, and in which law was it laid out? Was there an independent body that monitored standards in journalism? Would the State party make a commitment to refrain from further criminalising speech that was critical or perceived to be critical of the government?