Cambodia acceded to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment in October 1992. In September 2005, the Cambodian government signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, but has yet to ratify it. However, neither the Convention nor the Protocol have become effectively operational; the government has not criminalised torture or taken specific legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture as required under articles 2 and 4 of the Convention against Torture. Nor has it created a national preventive mechanism as required under article 3 of the Optional Protocol.
Cambodia’s domestic legislation contains some provisions against torture. Article 38 of the Cambodian constitution stipulates that “Coercion, physical ill-treatment or any other mistreatment that imposes additional punishment on a detainee or prisoner shall be prohibited. Persons who commit, participate or conspire in such acts shall be punished according to the law. Confessions obtained by physical or mental force shall not be admissible as evidence of guilt.” Similarly, article 12 (1) of the UNTAC Law of 1992 states that “No one shall be subjected to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment, nor be beaten or tortured.” The UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, incorporated in the same law, states in article 5 that “No law enforcement official may inflict, instigate or tolerate any act of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” These legal provisions however, are no more than a declaration of principles when there are no legislative, administrative and judicial measures to enforce the principles.
One local human rights group, LICADHO, is involved in monitoring torture by conducting interviews with prison inmates and pre-trial detainees in 18 of Cambodia’s 26 prisons. In 2005 they came across more than 2500 cases of torture among the prisoners and pre-trial detainees. From January-March 2006 they had come across 628 cases of torture.
Through interviews conducted in April and May 2006, staff from the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) came across the following torture cases. Pa Nguon Teang, broadcaster and Deputy Director of the Cambodian Centre for Human Rights, was arrested and detained at Prey Sar Prison, outside of Phnom Penh from January 5-17, 2006. According to Pa Nguon Teang, 10 inmates shared a room of 5 x 3.50 meters. Some of the inmates were pre-trial detainees, while others were serving prison sentences. During his detention Pa Nguon Teang learnt that new comers were beaten up and bullied in different ways by old inmates. Inmates were also beaten up on the eve of their release. However, they could be spared such treatment by bribing prison officials.
An undergraduate student named Huy, whose parents were running a clothes shop in a Phnom Penh market, told Pa Nguon Teang of being tortured in police custody during interrogation. According to Huy, the police tied a black plastic bag over his head to suffocate him and they also beat him. As a result, he confessed to whatever they wanted. Huy said there were two slogans on the wall of the ‘torture’ room: “No answer, beat up to get answers out” and “One answer out, beat up to get out five more”.
A peasant, 41-year-old Thon Tho suffered from schizophrenia. In 2001, he beat a 45-year-old man named Tuy To with a piece of firewood. After Tuy To complained to the village commune police, police officer Sum Sen came to Thon Tho’s home. Sum Sen fired three shots in intimidation and arrested Thon Tho. He hit Thon Tho on his left eyebrow with his pistol, causing him to bleed. His hands were then handcuffed behind his back, and he was hit with a bamboo baton on his forearm, back, and head. Two of Sum Sen’s nephews and another relative also joined in to beat and strangle Thon Tho.
Thon Tho was later taken to the district police office. He fell unconscious on arrival and was kept there for three nights and four days. His wife came to bring food for him two days later. She was asked to give USD 500 to the police for his release, otherwise he would be sent to the provincial capital, Kampong Cham, for detention. Although she did not have the money, he was released the next day.
With the help of human rights group LICADHO, Thon Tho was taken to Kampong Cham for medical treatment. Also with LICADHO’s help, in July 2004 he filed a lawsuit against Sum Sen at the provincial court of Kampong Cham. Thon Tho received two summonses, in August and September 2005 to go to court to make statements. However, at the time of writing, his case has not yet been heard.
Also in Kampong Cham province, 26-year-old Pok Mao was arrested for murder in December 2005. The police beat and kicked him, and broke his right jaw. However, Pok Mao told his lawyer he would not lodge any complaint against the police, fearing for his safety.
In LICADHO’s 2003 Torture in Police Custody Report, primary causes of torture were found to include extracting confessions and extorting money, while secondary causes included inadequacies in law enforcement techniques, impunity and the social attitude towards crime and justice. The social attitude, characterised by the presumption of guilt rather than innocence, is pervasive even among legal officers. Once a person has been arrested, he is usually described as a “guilty person”, even in legal or administrative documents. A person can be caught and beaten by a mob upon shouts and cries that the person is a “thief” or “robber”. At times such shouts and cries have led to extrajudicial killings. Presumption of guilt has led the media to run identifiable photos of suspects, at times stripped to their underwear and bearing or holding weapons for their alleged crimes. Presumption of guilt leads police and judicial officers to adopt a contemptuous manner towards suspects at police stations and in courtrooms. Judicial offers show a clear lack of concern at claims of torture made by the accused. They invariably dismiss these claims as ways to retract their earlier statements, rather than ordering investigations. This lack of concern merely serves to perpetuate torture.
To address such acts of torture, a number of recommendations have been submitted by LICADHO as well as the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Human Rights in Cambodia. These include the stipulation of legislative, judicial and administrative measures in the criminal procedure code currently being drafted. Stipulations regarding suspects’ rights to communication with people outside while in detention, unhindered access and visits to places of detention by human rights and legal organisations, and training in investigation techniques for the police must also be included.
On the occasion of the International Day in Support of the Victims of Torture 2006, the AHRC urges the Cambodian government to consider the following additional measures:
a. Cambodia should immediately ratify the Optional Protocol to the CAT and create the national preventive mechanism stipulated in that Protocol;
b. The criminal procedure code currently being drafted should include provisions requiring prosecutors, investigating judges and trial judges to immediately verify whether any suspect or accused brought before them has suffered torture. They must order an investigation into any suspected signs of torture and the accused must undergo a medical examination.
c. The criminal procedure code should also require that a lawyer or a literate peer acceptable to both the police and the suspect–an independent third person–be present during the police interrogation. This person should check the physical and mental conditions of the suspect in presence of the police, and if any ill treatment is suspected, a medical doctor must be called. This person should also read aloud the suspect’s statement before the suspect is asked to sign it, and he should also sign the statement.
d. There should also be provisions requiring the presence of the interrogating police officer in front of any of the three judicial officers if the suspect or accused claims to have been tortured to make confessions. If the claim of torture is proven, the case should be dismissed.
It is only with the enactment and enforcement of such legal provisions that the spirit of the Convention against Torture will be realised in the country.
