Appeal Judgement, Case File/Dossier No 002/19-09-2007-ECCC/SC

520 Pages·2016·4.29 MB·English

ម្ពះរាជាណាចម្កករពុជា

ជាត ិ សាសនា ម្ពះរហាកសម្ត

GgÁCMnMuCRmHvisamBaØkñúgtulakarkm<úCa Kingdom of Cambodia
Nation Religion King
E xtraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia Royaume du Cambodge
Chambres Extraordinaires au sein des Tribunaux Cambodgiens Nation Religion Roi

អង្គជំនុំជម្រះតលាុ ការកំពូល
Supreme Court Chamber
Chambre de la Cour suprême

សំណំរ ឿងរេខៈ ០០២/១៩ កញ្ញា ២០០៧/អ.វ.ត.ក./អ.ជ.ត.ក.
- -
Case File/Dossier No 002/19-09-2007-ECCC/SC

Before: Judge KONG Srim, President
Judge Chandra Nihal JAYASINGHE
Judge SOM Sereyvuth
Judge Agnieszka KLONOWIECKA-MILART
Judge MONG Monichariya
Judge Florence Ndepele MWACHANDE-MUMBA
Judge YA Narin

Greffiers: Volker NERLICH, SEA Mao, Paolo LOBBA, PHAN Theoun

Date: 23 November 2016
Original Language(s): Khmer/English
Classification: PUBLIC

APPEAL JUDGEMENT

Co-Prosecutors Co-Lawyers for NUON Chea
CHEA Leang SON Arun
Nicholas KOUMJIAN Victor KOPPE

Accused Co-Lawyers for KHIEU Samphân
KHIEU Samphân KONG Sam Onn
NUON Chea Anta GUISSÉ

Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyers
PICH Ang
Marie GUIRAUD
002/19-09-2007-ECCC/SC
Doc. No. F36
TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................................2
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY ........................................................................................................5
II. REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ........................................................................9
A. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................................9
B. LEGAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................................................................... 10
1. “Decisiveness” under Internal Rule 108(7) ........................................................................ 12
2. “Interests of justice” in respect of Internal Rule 104(1) ..................................................... 14
C. REQUEST TO SUMMON GAUTAM KUL CHANDRA (SCW-1) AND PAUL IGNATIEFF (SCW-2) . 15
D. REQUEST TO SUMMON HENG SAMRIN AND OUK BUNCHHOEN ................................................. 16
E. REQUESTS RELATING TO THET SAMBATH AND ROBERT LEMKIN ............................................. 18
1. Relevance of alleged rift within the CPK on NUON Chea’s individual criminal
responsibility ...................................................................................................................... 18
2. Admissibility of the proffered evidence................................................................................ 22
F. REQUEST TO ADMIT INTO EVIDENCE THET SAMBATH’S INTERVIEW WITH VOICE OF AMERICA
KHMER......................................................................................................................................... 26
G. REQUESTS TO ADMIT INTO EVIDENCE THE CARTWRIGHT INTERVIEW AND THE LEMONDE
BOOK EXCERPTS .......................................................................................................................... 26
H. REQUEST TO ADMIT INTO EVIDENCE THE PECH CHIM TRANSCRIPTS, AND PROPRIO MOTU
ADMISSION OF SAO VAN DC-CAM INTERVIEW .......................................................................... 28
I. REQUESTS INCLUDED IN NUON CHEA’S FIFTH REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE (F2/7) .... 30
J. REQUESTS INCLUDED IN NUON CHEA’S SIXTH REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE (F2/8) ... 32
III. STANDARD OF APPELLATE REVIEW .............................................................................. 37
A. ALLEGED ERRORS OF LAW ........................................................................................................... 37
B. ALLEGED ERRORS OF FACT .......................................................................................................... 38
C. CHALLENGES TO DECISIONS OF A PROCEDURAL NATURE ............................................................. 43
D. IMPACT OF ANY IDENTIFIED ERROR ON THE JUDGEMENT .............................................................. 44
E. REQUIREMENT TO SUBSTANTIATE ARGUMENTS ON APPEAL ......................................................... 45
IV. THE APPEALS OF NUON CHEA AND KHIEU SAMPHÂN ............................................. 46
A. CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE INTERNAL RULES ........................................................................... 46
B. FAIRNESS OF THE PROCEEDINGS ................................................................................................... 50
1. Right to an independent and impartial tribunal .................................................................. 50
2. Right to an effective defence ................................................................................................ 62
a) Failure to summon witnesses .......................................................................................................... 62
(1) HENG Samrin ........................................................................................................................... 63
(2) OUK Bunchhoen ....................................................................................................................... 75
(3) Robert LEMKIN ....................................................................................................................... 77
(4) Witnesses in relation to pre-evacuation conditions ................................................................... 80
(5) Witnesses in relation to policy to target Khmer Republic officials and soldiers ....................... 80
b) Admission and use of documents .................................................................................................... 81
(1) Requiring Defence to file document lists .................................................................................. 81
(2) Procedures relating to the admission of documents into evidence ............................................ 85
c) Inadequate time and page limits ...................................................................................................... 88
d) Procedural orders of the Trial Chamber .......................................................................................... 91
3. Right to a reasoned decision ............................................................................................... 93
4. Right to be informed of the charges/scope of the trial ........................................................ 98
a) Temporal jurisdiction ...................................................................................................................... 98
b) Findings on facts not covered by charges in Case 002/01 ............................................................. 103
c) Scope of Population Movement Phase Two .................................................................................. 108
C. THE TRIAL CHAMBER’S APPROACH TO EVIDENCE ...................................................................... 113
1. Limiting opportunities for investigations at trial ............................................................... 114
2. Permitting witnesses to review prior statements and asking them to confirm their content at
the hearing ........................................................................................................................ 120
3. Restrictions to the scope of questioning ............................................................................ 126
4. Admission and use of written evidence in lieu of oral testimony ....................................... 129
a) Legal standard for admission of written evidence in lieu of oral testimony .................................. 131
APPEAL JUDGEMENT, 23 NOVEMBER 2016 (PUBLIC) 2/520
002/19-09-2007-ECCC/SC
Doc. No. F36
b) Weight assigned to written evidence in lieu of oral testimony ...................................................... 136
5. Assessment of hearsay evidence ........................................................................................ 139
6. Reliance on civil party evidence ........................................................................................ 141
a) Reliance on civil party testimony .................................................................................................. 144
b) Reliance on statements of suffering and victim impact testimony ................................................ 146
7. Reliance on expert testimony and secondary sources ....................................................... 149
8. Assessment of probative value of fact witnesses ................................................................ 155
a) François PONCHAUD and Stephen HEDER ............................................................................... 156
b) Duch, PHY Phuon, LIM Sat, EM Oeun and NOU Mao ................................................................ 159
c) NUON Chea .................................................................................................................................. 166
d) Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 167
9. Exclusion of evidence obtained through torture ................................................................ 167
10. Presenting witnesses with documents unknown to them .................................................... 168
11. Rejection of requests to verify authenticity of documents .................................................. 169
12. Reliance on wrong standard of proof ................................................................................ 172
D. CRIMES OF WHICH THE ACCUSED WERE CONVICTED .................................................................. 174
1. Murder ............................................................................................................................... 174
a) Definition of the mens rea element of the crime against humanity of murder............................... 176
b) Murder committed during Population Movement Phase One ....................................................... 185
(1) Killing of civilians .................................................................................................................. 185
(2) Deaths resulting from the conditions during the evacuation of Phnom Penh .......................... 204
(3) Killing of soldiers and civilian officials .................................................................................. 211
c) Murder committed at Tuol Po Chrey ............................................................................................ 224
(1) The Zone Committee meeting and the order to kill the former Khmer Republic soldiers and
officials ................................................................................................................................... 225
(2) Other inconsistencies in witness evidence regarding the Pursat provincial hall meeting ........ 229
2. Extermination .................................................................................................................... 232
a) Grounds of appeal relating to the definition of extermination ....................................................... 233
(1) “Likely” vs. “calculated” ........................................................................................................ 235
(2) “Vast murderous enterprise” ................................................................................................... 238
b) Extermination committed during Population Movement Phase One............................................. 241
(1) Extermination of civilians ....................................................................................................... 241
(2) Extermination of Khmer Republic soldiers and officials ........................................................ 245
(3) Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 245
c) Extermination committed during Population Movement Phase Two ............................................ 245
d) Extermination committed at Tuol Po Chrey .................................................................................. 254
3. Other inhumane acts ......................................................................................................... 255
a) Trial Chamber’s approach to enforced disappearance and forced transfer as “other inhumane acts” .
..................................................................................................................................................... 257
b) Conditions of the evacuation and the use of violence during Population Movement Phase One .. 266
c) Purported justifications of Population Movement Phase One ....................................................... 274
d) Conditions and circumstances of Population Movement Phase Two ............................................ 279
(1) Generalised findings as to conditions of Population Movement Phase Two ........................... 281
(2) Generalised findings of people dying and disposal of their bodies ......................................... 285
(3) Conclusion that the majority of the people moved were “New People” ................................. 286
(4) Findings regarding killings ..................................................................................................... 288
(5) Finding that the people were forced, coerced or deceived to move......................................... 289
(6) Unlawfulness of Population Movement Phase Two................................................................ 291
e) Findings regarding the disappearance of evacuees ........................................................................ 293
f) Whether the Population Movement Phases One and Two amounted to “inhumane acts” in the
circumstances ................................................................................................................................ 296
(1) Population Movement Phase One ........................................................................................... 296
(2) Population Movement Phase Two .......................................................................................... 297
4. Persecution ........................................................................................................................ 298
a) Trial Chamber’s definition of the crime of persecution ................................................................ 299
b) Finding that “New People” constitute a discernible group ............................................................ 305
c) Persecution in the course of Population Movement Phase One .................................................... 307
d) Persecution in the course of Population Movement Phase Two .................................................... 313
5. Contextual element of crimes against humanity ................................................................ 316
a) Nexus to an armed conflict ........................................................................................................... 318
b) State plan or policy ....................................................................................................................... 324
c) Nexus to a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population on national,
political, ethnical, racial or religious grounds ............................................................................... 329
(1) Widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population .............................. 329
(2) On national, political, ethnical, racial or religious grounds ..................................................... 333
APPEAL JUDGEMENT, 23 NOVEMBER 2016 (PUBLIC) 3/520
002/19-09-2007-ECCC/SC
Doc. No. F36
(3) Nexus to the widespread or systematic attack ......................................................................... 335
(4) Knowledge .............................................................................................................................. 337
6. Foreseeability/principle of legality ................................................................................... 338
E. THE ACCUSED’S INDIVIDUAL CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY .......................................................... 343
1. Contribution to a common purpose (‘joint criminal enterprise’) ...................................... 343
a) Existence and scope of criminal liability based on a significant contribution to common purpose ....
..................................................................................................................................................... 343
b) Criminality of the common purpose .............................................................................................. 369
c) Existence and content of the population movement policy ........................................................... 372
(1) Existence of policy of forced transfer of city dwellers and purpose thereof ........................... 373
(2) Existence of policy of population movement between rural areas .......................................... 378
(3) Crimes encompassed by the common purpose in relation to Population Movement Phase One...
............................................................................................................................................... 385
(4) Crimes encompassed by the common purpose in relation to Population Movement Phase Two .
............................................................................................................................................... 392
d) Existence and content of the targeting policy ................................................................................ 394
(1) Vague formulation of the policy ............................................................................................. 395
(2) Existence of a pattern .............................................................................................................. 396
(3) Pattern as to the modalities for identification of Khmer Republic soldiers and officials and their
subsequent fate ........................................................................................................................ 412
(4) CPK statements, declarations and orders ................................................................................ 415
(5) Reasonableness of the overall conclusion ............................................................................... 429
e) Overall political context and finding that CPK adopted policy of armed struggle ........................ 435
f) Legal standard in respect of the contribution to the common purpose .......................................... 436
g) Finding that contribution to JCE may be by way of culpable omission ........................................ 441
h) Contribution of NUON Chea to the implementation of the common purpose .............................. 442
i) Contribution of KHIEU Samphân to the implementation of the common purpose ....................... 448
(1) KHIEU Samphân’s participation in policy meetings to plan the common purpose ................ 450
(2) KHIEU Samphân’s participation in instructional meetings to disseminate the common purpose.
............................................................................................................................................... 456
(3) KHIEU Samphân’s role as an economist in implementing the common purpose ................... 458
(4) KHIEU Samphân’s public statements endorsing the common purpose .................................. 460
(5) KHIEU Samphân’s role as a diplomat in defending the common purpose ............................. 463
(6) KHIEU Samphân’s overall contribution through authority and influence .............................. 465
(7) Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 466
j) Finding that the CPK was a unified, hierarchical party and that the armed forces involved in the
evacuation of Phnom Penh were unified ....................................................................................... 467
k) Role of Central Committee ........................................................................................................... 474
l) Principle of democratic centralism ................................................................................................ 476
m) Law in respect of the requisite intent ............................................................................................ 478
n) NUON Chea’s intent ..................................................................................................................... 480
o) KHIEU Samphân’s intent ............................................................................................................. 484
2. Principle of legality regarding modes of liability .............................................................. 499
3. Other modes of liability ..................................................................................................... 500
F. GROUNDS OF APPEAL RELEVANT TO THE ACCUSED’S SENTENCING AND IMPACT OF ERRORS ON
SENTENCE .................................................................................................................................. 502
1. Standard of review ............................................................................................................. 503
2. Determination of KHIEU Samphân’s grounds of appeal .................................................. 504
3. Impact of the Supreme Court Chamber’s findings on the sentence ................................... 507
V. THE APPEAL OF THE CO-PROSECUTORS .................................................................... 510
A. SUBMISIONS ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPEAL .................................................................. 510
B. DETERMINATION BY THE SUPREME COURT CHAMBER ............................................................... 513
VI. DISPOSITION ......................................................................................................................... 519

APPEAL JUDGEMENT, 23 NOVEMBER 2016 (PUBLIC) 4/520
002/19-09-2007-ECCC/SC
Doc. No. F36
1. The SUPREME COURT CHAMBER of the Extraordinary Chambers in the
Courts of Cambodia for the Prosecution of Crimes Committed during the Period of
Democratic Kampuchea between 17 April 1975 and 6 January 1979 hereby renders its
judgement on the appeals against the judgement of the Trial Chamber issued on 7
August 2014 in Case 002/011 against NUON Chea and KHIEU Samphân.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
2. In the Trial Judgement, the Trial Chamber found the Accused guilty of crimes
against humanity of extermination (encompassing murder), persecution on political
grounds, and other inhuman acts (comprising forced transfer, enforced disappearances
and attacks against human dignity) committed within the territory of Democratic
Kampuchea between 17 April 1975 and the end of 1977; each of the Accused was
sentenced to life imprisonment.2 The Trial Chamber declared that the civil parties
have suffered harm as a direct consequence of the crimes of which the Accused have
been convicted and accordingly granted, in part, the civil parties’ request for
collective and moral reparations, endorsing eleven projects.3
3. In the course of the appellate proceedings, NUON Chea filed six requests for
additional evidence, the details of which are set out under the relevant section below.4
4. On 29 September 2014, having been granted time extension,5 NUON Chea,
KHIEU Samphân and the Co-Prosecutors filed their respective notices of appeal
against the Trial Judgement.6 NUON Chea’s Notice of Appeal listed 223 grounds of
appeal, claiming that each error of fact, individually or cumulative to other errors,
caused a miscarriage of justice and that each error of law invalidated at least part of
the Trial Judgement or another decision of the Trial Chamber.7 KHIEU Samphân’s
Notice of Appeal advanced 148 grounds of appeal and requested the Supreme Court

1 See, on the severance of Case 002, Decision on Appeal Against Third Severance (E301/9/1/1/3);
Decision on Appeal Against Second Severance (E284/4/8); Decision on Appeal Against First Severance
(E163/5/1/13). Full references to the decisions, filings and other documents cited in this judgement are
contained in Annex A – Designations Chart.
2 Trial Judgement, paras 1060, 1106-1107 and Disposition.
3 Trial Judgement, paras 1150-1160 and Disposition.
4 See below, para. 17 et seq.
5 Decision on Extension of Time and Page Limits on Notices of Appeal and Appeal Briefs (F3/3).
6 NUON Chea’s Notice of Appeal (E313/1/1); Déclaration d’appel de KHIEU Samphân (E313/2/1) (not
available in English); Co-Prosecutors’ Notice of Appeal (E313/3/1).
7 NUON Chea’s Notice of Appeal (E313/1/1), para. 2.
APPEAL JUDGEMENT, 23 NOVEMBER 2016 (PUBLIC) 5/520
002/19-09-2007-ECCC/SC
Doc. No. F36
Chamber to set aside the Trial Judgement, acquit him and order his immediate release
from detention.8 The Co-Prosecutors declared that they were filing an appeal “in the
interests of law” against the Trial Chamber’s decision to exclude from consideration
in this case the third form of joint criminal enterprise (“JCE”) as a mode of criminal
liability.9
5. On 28 November 2014, the Co-Prosecutors filed their appeal brief.10
6. On 29 December 2014, having been granted time and page extensions,11
NUON Chea filed his appeal brief,12 in English only, and KHIEU Samphân his appeal
brief, in French only.13 The Khmer versions of NUON Chea’s and KHIEU Samphân’s
appeal briefs were notified on 24 and 25 March 2015, respectively.14
7. On 28 January 2015, having been granted time extension,15 the Accused filed
their respective responses to the Co-Prosecutors’ Appeal Brief.16
8. On 24 April 2015, the Co-Prosecutors filed their response to the Accused’s
appeal briefs,17 in English only.18 The Khmer version thereof was notified on 12
August 2015.
9. On 25 May 2015, having been so authorised,19 the Civil Party Lead Co-
Lawyers filed their response to the Accused’s appeal briefs, in English only.20 The
Khmer version thereof was notified on 16 July 2015.

8 Déclaration d’appel de KHIEU Samphân (E313/2/1), para. 153 (not available in English).
9 Co-Prosecutors’ Notice of Appeal (E313/3/1).
10 Co-Prosecutors’ Appeal Brief (F11).
11 Decision on Appeal Brief and Responses Extension Requests (F9); Decision on Extension of Pages
Limit and Time to Respond (F13/2). See also Decision on NUON Chea’s Request to File Addendum
(F15/1).
12 NUON Chea’s Appeal Brief.
13 KHIEU Samphân’s Appeal Brief. See also Decision on Request for Correction of KHIEU Samphân’s
Appeal Brief (F18/3).
14 The English translation of KHIEU Samphân’s Appeal Brief was notified on 17 August 2015.
15 Decision on Extension of Pages Limit and Time to Respond (F13/2).
16 NUON Chea’s Response; KHIEU Samphân’s Response.
17 Co-Prosecutors’ Response.
18 See Decision on OCP Request to File Response in English Only (F21/1). See also Decision on Time
Extension for Response (F23/1).
19 Decision on Civil Party Standing (F10/2).
20 Civil Parties’ Response.
APPEAL JUDGEMENT, 23 NOVEMBER 2016 (PUBLIC) 6/520
002/19-09-2007-ECCC/SC
Doc. No. F36
10. On 2, 3 and 6 July 2015,21 the Supreme Court Chamber held hearings to
examine three witnesses,22 the summoning of whom had been requested by NUON
Chea.23 In this context, the Supreme Court Chamber ruled that the Parties would not
be allowed to use statements that had likely been obtained by means of torture.24
11. On 9 October 2015, the Supreme Court Chamber scheduled the appeal hearing
for 16-18 November 2015 and notified the Parties of a potential change to the “legal
characterisation of the crime”, inviting them to file submissions thereupon.25 The start
of the appeal hearing, for logistical reasons, was subsequently postponed to 17
November 2015.26
12. On 17 November 2015, the Supreme Court Chamber opened the appeal
hearing, but had to adjourn it shortly thereafter, due to the lack of legal representation
for NUON Chea resulting from the absence of his Co-Lawyers from the courtroom,27
which led the Chamber to impose sanctions against NUON Chea’s national Co-
Lawyer for his misconduct28 and instruct the Defence Support Section to appoint a
standby counsel for NUON Chea.29
13. On 23 December 2015, following the appointment of PHAT Pouv Seang as a
standby counsel for NUON Chea,30 the Supreme Court Chamber ordered that the
appeal hearing be resumed on 16 February 2016 and continued through 18 February
2016.31
14. On 16 February 2016, the Supreme Court Chamber resumed the appeal
hearing,32 which, having heard the oral submissions of KHIEU Samphân, the Co-

21 See T. 2 July 2015, F1/1.1; T. 3 July 2015, F1/2.1; T. 6 July 2015, F1/3.1.
22 Order Scheduling Evidentiary Hearing (F24); Decision on Conduct of Hearing (F26). See also
Decision on Investigation into Witness Credibility (F28/4).
23 See Decision on Call for Witnesses on Appeal (F2/5).
24 Decision on Torture-tainted Evidence (F26/12).
25 Order Scheduling Appeal Hearing (F30).
26 Final Order Scheduling Appeal Hearing (F30/4).
27 See T. 17 November 2015, F1/4.1.
28 Decision on Conduct of Lawyers (F30/18).
29Memorandum on Appointment of Standby Counsel (F30/15). See also Memorandum Addressing
Conflict of Interest (F30/15/1/1).
30 DSS Appointment of Standby Counsel (F30/15/2). See also Decision Rejecting OCP Submission
(F30/16/1).
31 Order Resuming Appeal Hearing (F30/17).
32 See T. 16 February 2016, F1/5.1.
APPEAL JUDGEMENT, 23 NOVEMBER 2016 (PUBLIC) 7/520
002/19-09-2007-ECCC/SC
Doc. No. F36
Prosecutors and the Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyers, it declared concluded on 18
February 2016.33
15. On 12 September 2016, the Supreme Court Chamber scheduled the
pronouncement of its appeal judgement for 23 November 2016.34
16. The Supreme Court Chamber denied on 8 April and 11 December 2015
requests from Case 003 and Case 004 defence teams to intervene in the appeal
proceedings of Case 002/01 or submit amici curiae briefs.35

33 T. 18 February 2016, F1/7.1, p. 102.
34 Order Scheduling Pronouncement (F34).
35 First Decision on Intervention (F20/1); Second Decision on Intervention (F31/1).
APPEAL JUDGEMENT, 23 NOVEMBER 2016 (PUBLIC) 8/520
002/19-09-2007-ECCC/SC
Doc. No. F36
II. REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE
A. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
17. In the course of the appeal proceedings, NUON Chea, through numerous
written submissions, requested that the Supreme Court Chamber obtain, admit and
consider additional evidence; his requests included seeking to obtain audio-visual
material, summoning sixteen individuals as witnesses; and admitting into evidence
other documentary or audio-visual material.36
18. On 1 April 2015, the Supreme Court Chamber granted, in part, NUON Chea’s
requests, initiating an additional investigation pursuant to Internal Rule 93, which was
to be conducted by two Delegate Judges.37 In the framework of the investigation,
Robert LEMKIN provided his unpublished notes, stating that they summarised the
content of interviews he and THET Sambath had conducted with the four individuals
Robert LEMKIN mentioned during his interview with the Delegate Judges 38
(“LEMKIN Notes”). 39 Pursuant to the Third Interim Decision on Additional
Investigation (F2/4/3/3/5), Robert LEMKIN subsequently provided also what he said
were the transcripts of the interviews with these four individuals (“LEMKIN
Transcripts”).40
19. On 29 May 2015, the Supreme Court Chamber granted, in part, additional
aspects of NUON Chea’s requests, admitting the interview record of TOAT Thoeun41
(SCW-5) into evidence and summoning SÂM Sithy (SCW-3), SAO Van (SCW-4)
and TOAT Thoeun to testify,42 which they did on 2, 3 and 6 July 2015.43
20. On 21 October 2015, the Supreme Court Chamber issued a decision, with
reasons to follow, disposing of the remainder of NUON Chea’s requests for additional

36 See, for a detailed recapitulation of the procedural history, Disposition on Pending Requests for
Additional Evidence (F2/9).
37 First Interim Decision on Additional Investigation (F2/4/3), paras 24-26.
38 Robert LEMKIN Interview Record, 18 May 2015, F2/4/3/1 (“LEMKIN Interview Record
(F2/4/3/1)”).
39 Annex - Robert LEMKIN’s Notes on RUOS Nhim’s Political Agenda, 15 June 2015, F2/4/3/3.1.
40 Transcripts of Interviews Provided by Robert LEMKIN, 2 October 2015, F2/4/3/3/6.2.
41 Note that his name is also transliterated into Latin characters as “TOIT Thoeurn”. In all its decisions
in Case 002/01, including the present judgement, the Supreme Court Chamber uses the variant “TOAT
Thoeun”.
42 Decision on Call for Witnesses on Appeal (F2/5), para. 26.
43 Order Scheduling Evidentiary Hearing (F24).
APPEAL JUDGEMENT, 23 NOVEMBER 2016 (PUBLIC) 9/520
002/19-09-2007-ECCC/SC
Doc. No. F36
evidence.44 Pursuant to Internal Rule 104(1), it admitted into evidence: (i) the video
record of an interview given at the Aspen Institute in November 2013 by Judge Silvia
CARTWRIGHT, then a judge of the Trial Chamber (“CARTWRIGHT Interview”);45
(ii) excerpts from the book entitled Un juge face aux Khmers Rouges, written by
former Co-Investigating Judge Marcel Lemonde (“LEMONDE Book Excerpts”);46
(iii) the two transcripts of PECH Chim’s 23 and 24 April 2015 testimony before the
Trial Chamber in Case 002/02 (“PECH Chim Transcripts”);47 (iv) the transcripts of
TOAT Thoeun’s interviews with THET Sambath and Robert LEMKIN;48 and, on its
own motion, (v) the written record of a conversation between SAO Van and
individuals affiliated with DC-Cam (“SAO Van DC-Cam Interview”);49 whereas it
rejected the remainder of NUON Chea’s requests for additional evidence and closed
the additional investigation it had launched.
21. On 11 February 2016, the Supreme Court Chamber denied NUON Chea’s
request that it reconsider its Disposition on Pending Requests for Additional Evidence
(F2/9) or provide the related reasons prior to the scheduled resumption of the appeal
hearing, stating that such reasons will be rendered in the judgement on the merits of
the appeals.50
22. The Supreme Court Chamber hereby provides the reasons for the decisions
issued within its Disposition on Pending Requests for Additional Evidence (F2/9).
B. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
23. In the Decision on Call for Witnesses on Appeal (F2/5),51 the Supreme Court
Chamber summarised the applicable law for additional evidence on appeal as follows:

44 Disposition on Pending Requests for Additional Evidence (F2/9), pp. 6-7.
45 Annex 3: Conversation of Judge Silvia CARTWRIGHT at the Aspen Institute (7 November 2013),
21 October 2015, F2/9.3R.
46 Annex 4: Excerpts from Book by Marcel LEMONDE: Un juge face aux Khmers Rouges, 21 October
2015, F2/9.4 (merging the various excerpts from the book that had been filed into the record:
E189/3/1/7.1.1, E189/3/1/7.1.2, E189/3/1/7.1.3 and E189/3/1/7.1.4).
47 T. 23 April 2015 (PECH Chim) (Case 002/02), F2/6.1.1; T. 24 April 2015 (PECH Chim) (Case
002/02), F2/6.1.2.
48 Interviews of TOAT Thoeun with THĒT Sambăth and Robert LEMKIN, 21 October 2015, F2/9.2
(excerpts from the LEMKIN Transcripts).
49 Statement of SAO Van (DC-Cam), 21 October 2015, F2/9.1.
50 Decision on NUON Chea’s Request for Reconsideration (F2/10/3), pp. 3-4.
51 Decision on Call for Witnesses on Appeal (F2/5), paras 15-17.
APPEAL JUDGEMENT, 23 NOVEMBER 2016 (PUBLIC) 10/520