After The First Trial: A Population-Based Survey on Knowledge and Perception of Justice and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia
On July 26, 2010, Kaing Guek Eav, alias Duch, was convicted of crimes against humanity and grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions for events that took place three decades earlier under the Khmer Rouge regime. Following this important milestone for the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), the present study was implemented to (1) monitor public awareness and knowledge of the ECCC’s work, as well as of outreach and victim participation initiatives organized by the tribunal and local non-governmental organizations; (2) assess attitudes about justice and the desire for reparations for past crimes; and 3) recommend ways in which the ECCC, civil society, and the international community can continue to engage Cambodians in the work of the ECCC. This report presents the results of a survey of 1,000 Cambodians, aged 18 or above, randomly selected throughout the country to be representative of the adult population. The interviews were conducted anonymously and confidentially in December 2010 by a team of trained interviewers using a structured questionnaire. This is the second population-based survey conducted in Cambodia by the Initiative for Vulnerable Populations at UC Berkeley’s School of Law Human Rights Center. It is hoped that the findings will contribute to establishing a dialogue between the ECCC, the government, the Cambodian population, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the international actors on the role and impact of the ECCC, expectations of the population, and beyond the Court, what must be done to deal with the violent past.
Forgotten Voices: A Population-Based Survey of Attitudes About Peace and Justice in Northern Uganda
For nearly two decades, the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) has waged a war against the people of Northern Uganda. The group’s conflict with government forces has received little international attention, even though as many as 1.6 million civilians have been displaced and now languish in dozens of squalid camps throughout the countryside. In recent years, several researchers have conducted qualitative studies of the factors influencing peace and justice considerations in the north, primarily comprising interviews with Ugandan government officials, humanitarian workers, traditional and religious leaders, former LRA members, and others. These studies have contributed greatly to our understanding of the challenges policymakers face in their efforts to end years of war. Yet most research has not included population-based data that represent the spectrum of attitudes and opinions of those most affected by the violence. This report seeks to fill that void.The report presents the findings of a study conducted by researchers from the Human Rights Center (HRC), University of California, Berkeley, in partnership with the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ), Payson Center of Tulane University and Makerere University Institute of Public Health. The findings are based on the preliminary analysis of quantitative data collected from cross-sectional survey of 2,585 individuals residing in the four selected directs in northern Uganda - Gulu and Kitgum (both Acholi districts), and Lira and Soroti (both non-Acholi districts) - between April 20 and May 2, 2005. The specific objectives of the survey were to: 1) Measure the overall exposure to violence as a result of war and human rights abuses in Northern Uganda since 1987; 2) Understand the immediate needs and concerns of residents of towns, villages, and internally displaced person (IDP) camps in Northern Uganda; 3) Capture opinions and attitudes about specific transitional justice mechanisms, including trials, traditional justice, truth commissions, and reparations; and 4) Elucidate views on the relationship between peace and justice in Northern Uganda.
The administration of the courts
Section 28 of Article VI of the State Constitution provides that the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals is the Chief Judge of the State and its chief judicial officer. The Chief Judge appoints a Chief Administrator of the Courts (or Chief Administrative Judge of the Courts if the appointee is a judge) with the advice and consent of the Administrative Board of the Courts. The Administrative Board consists of the Chief Judge as chair and the Presiding Justices of the four Appellate Divisions of the Supreme Court. The Chief Judge establishes statewide administrative standards and policies after consultation with the Administrative Board and approval by the Court of Appeals.