Juvenile Defendants’ Right to be Tried within a Reasonable Time in Cambodia: An International Human Rights Analysis

Abstract

A delay in proceedings pending trial has a significant impact on defendants, particularly juveniles. The majority of prominent human rights instruments and their governing bodies seek to address the right to be tried within a reasonable time. Nevertheless, the unique position of juvenile defendants in relation to this right is considered with substantial inconsistency. Cambodia has ratified several international treaties acknowledging this fundamental right and recently adopted the Juvenile Justice Law. Consequently, this article examines the extent to which the right for juvenile defendants to be tried within a reasonable time has been incorporated into the relevant international, as well as the Cambodian legislative framework, and case law.

Keywords

Cambodia delays in criminal trial proceedings fair trial human rights juvenile justice reasonable time

Introduction

The right to a fair trial is considered a foundational pillar of the rule of law and of any criminal justice system. It is a fundamental and universally recognised human right that has been enshrined in the key international and regional human rights instruments.¹ The right to a fair trial enables everyone charged with a criminal offence to be treated equally and fairly throughout the process of determining his or her innocence or guilt (Art. 14 ICCPR).

Children² who are accused of criminal offences are entitled to all the fair trial rights that pertain to adults, as well as to additional protection mechanisms in acknowledgement of their age (Art. 40 (2)(b) CRC; UN Human Rights Committee, 2007: para. 42). In particular for children, the right to have an expeditious trial is a fair trial right of paramount importance and should be adhered to throughout all stages of the criminal justice process, including appeal proceedings (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2007: para. 51; UN Human Rights Committee, 2007: para. 35).

Internationally, recognition of the significance for the right for juvenile defendants to be tried within a reasonable time has become an issue of increasing importance, reflected in several research reports and academic studies examining the matter (see, for example, Bleeker, 2016; Butts et al., 2009; Butts and Sanborn, 1999; International Legal Foundation, 2014).

With the exception of the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC Committee), neither the relevant international instruments nor their governing bodies define ‘reasonable time’ in terms of duration. The Human Rights Committee (HRC) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ascertain the ‘reasonableness’ of the duration of proceedings on a case-by-case basis (Council of Europe, 2018: paras 283–294; UN Human Rights Committee, 2007: para. 35). Evaluation of the ‘reasonable time’ requirement, including identifying the specific defining criteria has been discussed in depth by several scholars (see, for example, Amoo, 2010; Chadambuka, 2012; Henzelin and Rordorf, 2014; Kaija, 2013; Kuijer, 2013). Notwithstanding, a specific focus and analysis on juvenile defendants has been limited.

With particular reference to Cambodia, despite the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as the adoption of the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration (AHRD), substantial challenges remain with regard to the development of a functioning juvenile justice system. There are neither children’s courts nor prisons, or judges and prosecutors who are specialised in the area of juvenile justice (Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR), 2018; Handley, 2016; LICADHO, 2015; Reimer, 2015; World Vision, 2016). Accordingly, often this results in juveniles being subjected to the equivalent judicial procedures as adults (Reimer, 2015; UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2011: para. 76; UN Human Rights Committee, 2015: para. 15). Encouragingly, in 2016 the Law on Juvenile Justice (JJ Law) was adopted and came into effect in 2017. Consequently, it is anticipated, the situation will gradually improve.

Presently, key weaknesses include inadequate implementation of legislation, including specifically on child-related legislation and child-friendly procedures. Furthermore, there is a distinct lack of well-trained and experienced judicial officers (judges, prosecutors and clerks), social workers and pro bono lawyers specialised in criminal juvenile cases. In addition, an inadequately functioning prison system is in place, which lacks the infrastructure and facilities to appropriately cater for juveniles. Moreover, the judicial and prison system are often reported to be prone to political interference and vulnerable to the influences of informal financial incentives (CCHR, 2018; Coughlan et al., 2012; Handley, 2016; LICADHO, 2015; Reimer, 2015; UN Human Rights Committee, 2015; World Vision, 2016).

More particularly, previous Cambodia-specific research and other relevant sources have tended to, among others issues, focus on excessive delays in pre-trial detention and pending appeal trials (see, for example, Dara, 2018; Leang, 2011; LICADHO, 2015, 2018; Teeuwen, 2009; Teeuwen et al., 2006; UN Human Rights Council, 2013: para. 38, 2017: para. 20, 2018: para. 13(f)). Nevertheless, no known sound academic analysis exists, which provides an in-depth examination of the domestic legislation supporting the right for juveniles to be tried within a reasonable time.

Accordingly, the principal question which will be examined in this article is to what extent the right for juvenile defendants to be tried within a reasonable time has been incorporated into the relevant international, as well as the Cambodian legislative framework, and case law.

In order to appropriately respond to the central research question, several supporting sub-questions will be examined:

To what extent have the international human rights instruments recognised by Cambodia, incorporated the right for juvenile defendants to be tried within a reasonable time?

How do the HRC and the ECtHR assess ‘reasonable time’ pertinent to juvenile cases and could their approach serve as a leading example for Cambodia?

To what extent has Cambodia incorporated the relevant human rights standards pertaining to the right for juvenile defendants to be tried within a reasonable time into its domestic legislation?

Several methodological approaches have been adopted, including a literature review and an examination of international human rights instruments, their governing bodies and of the Cambodian legislative framework.³

The intended outcome is, through an analysis of the past and current standards and practices, to provide recommendations related to the relevant human rights instruments and bodies, as well as the Royal Government of Cambodia, on legal and standards reform for enhanced compliance of this right. Finally, the author anticipates, through this article and its recommendations, to positively contribute to the further development of the Cambodian legal system, particularly as it progresses the implementation of the JJ Law.

This article will commence by providing an overview of the implications of delays in trial proceedings for defendants, in order to demonstrate the importance of being tried within a reasonable time. Subsequently, an analysis will be presented of the human rights framework recognised by Cambodia, and the case law of the HRC and the ECtHR, pertaining to the right for juvenile defendants to be tried within a reasonable time.⁴ In addition, the article will provide an overview and analysis of the juvenile justice system in Cambodia, including an assessment of the legislative framework related to the right for juvenile defendants to be tried within a reasonable time. The article will finalise with a conclusion and recommendations.⁵

The Implications of Delay

Delays in trial proceedings have proven to engender a variety of adverse outcomes. It can lead to negative impacts upon society, as confidence in judicial authority is eroded, including as it pertains to its role in the harmonious settlement of conflicts (Kuijer, 2013). Lengthy proceedings can also place ‘considerable strain’ upon defendants, arising from the ‘uncertainty’ surrounding their fate (Trechsel, 2005; see also, UN Human Rights Committee, 2007: para. 35). Timely trials are clearly of fundamental importance for innocent suspects (Kuijer, 2013), in addition to prevent ‘exculpatory evidence’ from getting lost (Stavros, 1993).

The implications of delays in court proceedings are even more severe for juvenile defendants for multiple reasons. Children, by their nature, are not physically and psychologically fully developed and have different educational and emotional requirements (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2007: para. 10); this leaves them more vulnerable compared with adults.

In addition, children’s perception of time differs greatly from adults (Siu et al., 2014). Children, including juveniles, have a reduced capacity to consider long-term consequences and a greater tendency for immediate decision-making (Grisso et al., 2003; Shepherd, 2000; Steinberg and Cauffman, 1996). As such, during trial procedures, juveniles, as a result of their adolescent nature, are often prone to impatience to accelerate their court proceedings to a rapid conclusion, irrespective of the outcome. When delays in court proceedings are excessive, juvenile defendants may demonstrate decreased capacity to assist in their own defence towards safeguarding an appropriate outcome for themselves (Butts et al., 2009; see also, UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2013: para. 93).

Conversely, research on this topic indicates that youth who are subjected to swift court procedures following an offence are less likely to reoffend, compared with those with lengthy proceedings who could reoffend before the court has had the opportunity to process their initial offences (Burgess, 1982; Butts et al., 2009; Butts and Sanborn, 1999; Lubow, 2017).

Butts and Sanborn (1999) state further that the impact of delayed procedures from the perspective of juveniles, specifically if subjected to lengthy delays between arrest and trial, can minimise the perceived gravity of their situation and negatively influence their behaviours towards committing further offences, as the delays minimise any deterrence (see also, Listokin, 2007; Lubow, 2017).

Moreover, children progressing through the juvenile justice system often experience stress and trauma (Feierman and Fine, 2014). Understandably, the impact of delays is exacerbated when juveniles are deprived of their liberty. Incarceration has a deeply harmful effect on juveniles’ psychological and physical well-being, their education and future employment prospects, as well as their reintegration in society (Barnert et al., 2017; Burrell, 2013; González, 2017; Justice Policy Institute, 2014; Mendel, 2011; UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2007: para. 11; UN Human Rights Council, 2015: para. 16). ‘Timely case processing’ can reduce the length of pre-trial detention (Lubow, 2017).

Juvenile Defendants’ Right to an Expeditious Trial: International Human Rights Framework

The right to an expeditious trial has been recognised under the international human rights framework as an integral component of the right to a fair trial, as well as the right to liberty. The following section responds to the first sub-question posed, through assessing the extent to which the human rights instruments recognised by Cambodia have incorporated this specific right, in particular regarding to juvenile defendants. Although the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is not applicable to Cambodia, it has been included within the analysis, as the ECtHR’s case law is relevant to this topic.

The right to an expeditious trial as an integral component of the right to a fair trial

The right to a fair trial is a foundational pillar of international human rights law, which was created to shield individuals from unlawful and unreasonable deprivation of basic rights and freedoms throughout criminal proceedings.⁶

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the ICCPR, both set forth the basic human rights to be universally safeguarded (Preamble UDHR; ICCPR). Contrary to the UDHR, the ICCPR entitles everyone ‘in the determination of any criminal charge against him’ ‘to be tried without undue delay’ (Art. 14 (3)(c) ICCPR). Specifically in the case of juvenile defendants, the ICCPR emphasises the requirement to take children’s age into account throughout the criminal proceedings (Art. 14 (4) ICCPR).

The CRC is the most fundamental and comprehensive human rights instrument related to children’s rights and child protection. At the time of writing this article, every country, with the exception of the United States, has ratified this Convention (UN News Centre, 2015). A child is defined under the CRC as any person below 18 years of age (Art. 1). The CRC explicitly stipulates that every child in conflict with the law has the guarantee to be tried ‘without delay’ (Art. 40 (2)(b)(iii) CRC).

The HRC and the CRC Committee are tasked to oversee the implementation of the ICCPR and the CRC, respectively. In their general comments, the concept of delays in trial proceedings being harmful for (juvenile) defendants is further verified and specific guidance on the interpretation and implementation of the right to have an expeditious trial is provided. The HRC reinforces that ‘all stages, whether in first instance or on appeal must take place “without undue delay”’(UN Human Rights Committee, 2007: para. 35).

The CRC Committee explains that with specific regard to children, the CRC requires a trial ‘without delay’ discarding the stipulation ‘undue’ to reinforce the importance of expediting the process. The CRC Committee explicitly states further that for juvenile defendants ‘the time between the commission of the offence and the final response to this act should be as short as possible’. The lengthier this time frame, ‘the more likely it is that the response loses its desired positive, pedagogical impact, and the more the child will be stigmatized’ (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2007: para. 51). States parties are thus recommended to establish and implement time limits between the various stages of the criminal process. These time limits should be significantly swifter than for adults, while simultaneously the actual proceedings must thoroughly guarantee the child’s legal and human rights (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2007: para. 52).

Moreover, the CRC Committee has affirmed that the UN Guidelines and Rules on Juvenile Justice provide important principles for the implementation of Arts 37 and 40 of the CRC (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2007: para. 4). Particularly, the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (the ‘Beijing Rules’) (Rule 20.1) and the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (the ‘Havana Rules’) (Rule 17) acknowledge the paramount significance of the expeditiousness in legal proceedings for children.

Regional human rights instruments relevant for this article are the ECHR and the AHRD focusing on Europe and Asia, respectively. The ECHR entitles everyone to a hearing ‘within a reasonable time’ (Art. 6 (1) ECHR). ‘Everyone’ includes children (Tulkens, 2014). Although the AHRD is not considered formally binding, the Declaration is regarded as the basic framework for human rights collaboration among ASEAN member states that have committed to respect its provisions. The Declaration affirms that ‘human rights and fundamental freedoms’ belong to ‘every person’, referring in particular to, among other groups, children (Art. 4). Critically, however, no specific mention has been made under the Declaration to the right for either adults or juveniles to be tried within a reasonable time (American Bar Association Rule of Law Initiative, 2014).

The right to an expeditious trial as an integral component of the right to liberty

Pursuant to international standards, every person has the right to liberty and no one shall be deprived of this right in an unlawful or arbitrary way (Art. 37 (b) CRC; Art. 9 (1) ICCPR). In case of pre-trial detention, the ICCPR entitles everyone to be tried ‘within a reasonable time or to release’ (Art. 9 (3) ICCPR). This right is specifically reinforced for juveniles in article 10 (2)(b), which sets forth that children in provisional detention should be brought to adjudication ‘as speedily as possible’.

The HRC affirms these necessary entitlements and further emphasises the need to prevent provisional detention of juveniles (UN Human Rights Committee, 1992: para. 13; UN Human Rights Committee, 2007: para. 42; UN Human Rights Committee, 2014: para. 37). In its case law, the HRC further underlines that excessive pre-trial detention undermines the defendant’s presumption of innocence (Cagas v. Philippines: para. 7.3; UN Human Rights Committee, 2014: para. 37).

The CRC specifically demands that ‘detention or imprisonment of a child … shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time’ (Art. 37 (b) CRC). In the event that release is not an option, the CRC Committee provides specific guidance on the maximum detention limits: (1) the child must be charged and brought to trial not beyond 30 days after the commencement of provisional detention and (2) a final decision on the charges, including appeal proceedings, should be concluded within 6 months from the initiation of the charge (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2007: para. 83).

The Havana Rules reiterate that in case provisional detention is unavoidable, the ‘highest priority to the most expeditious processing of such cases’ should be given ensuring the detention is as short as possible (Rule 17). Similar to the ICCPR, the ECHR entitles ‘everyone’ in provisional detention to be tried ‘within a reasonable time or to release’ (Art. 5 (3) ECHR).

It can be concluded that the right for juvenile defendants to an expeditious trial, whether in detention or not, has been, except under the AHRD, either explicitly or implicitly recognised in distinctive language under the human rights standards recognised by Cambodia. Furthermore, the predominant terminology adopted by the instruments is either the right to be tried ‘within a reasonable time’ or ‘without (undue) delay’. Trechsel (2005) argues that although the wording is different, they both serve the same underlying purpose and meaning that ‘the time used for the proceedings will be “reasonable” as long as there has been no “undue delay”’ (see also, Henzelin and Rordorf, 2014). It can be further determined that, notwithstanding the incorporation of this right, the ‘reasonable time’ requirement has not been defined in relation to either adult or juvenile cases under the relevant human rights instruments.

‘Reasonable Time’ Assessment

The following section responds to the second sub-question, through an assessment of the approach of the HRC and the ECtHR in relation to the ‘reasonable time’ determination in adult and juvenile criminal cases, including if differentiated ‘reasonable time’ criteria are applied.⁷ At the time of drafting this article, to the author’s knowledge, the CRC Committee has not yet issued any juvenile case law pertinent to the ‘reasonable time’ requirement and its criteria, stemming from the relatively recent adoption of the Optional Protocol to the CRC on a Communications Procedure, which entered into force in 2014.

Time frame and ‘reasonable time’ criteria

The time frame establishing the ‘reasonable time’ assessment has been determined in the case law of the HRC and the ECtHR. The relevant time period commences at the time a person is ‘charged’. This period completes when final judgement is rendered, including appeal proceedings (Eckle v. Germany: paras 73–76; Taright, Touadi, Remli and Yousfi v. Algeria: para. 8.5; UN Human Rights Committee, 2007: para. 35). The period for determining the ‘reasonableness’ of pre-trial detention must be calculated from the time of arrest until the trial of first instance (Evans v. Trinidad and Tobago: para. 6.2; Solmaz v. Turkey: paras 23, 24 and 34).

In contrast to the CRC Committee in General Comment No. 10, the HRC and ECtHR do not prescribe specific time limits for the length of the different phases of the proceedings. The HRC and ECtHR ascertain the ‘reasonableness’ of the duration of proceedings on a case-by-case basis or in the context of each case, in view of certain criteria set forth in their case law (Council of Europe, 2018: paras 283–294; UN Human Rights Committee, 2007: para. 35; see also, Chadambuka, 2012).

The ‘reasonable time’ criteria, which are both applied by the HRC and ECtHR in their criminal cases, include consideration of the complexity of the case, the conduct of the accused and the conduct of the relevant administrative and judicial authorities (Council of Europe, 2018: paras 283–294; Krasnova v. Kyrgyzstan: para. 8.7).

However, unlike the HRC, the ECtHR considers an additional criterion, namely: the importance of ‘what is at stake’ for the applicant or defendant in the proceeding (Abdoella v. the Netherlands: para. 24).

Complexity of the case

The HRC and ECtHR consider the complexity of the case as one of the criteria when determining whether a ‘reasonable time’ period has been violated. The degree of difficulty of the investigation is regularly appraised during this assessment, including factors such as the amount of charges, the quantity of people involved in the case and the volume of evidence that had to be obtained (Michael and Brian Hill v. Spain: para. 12.4; Neumeister v. Austria: paras 20 and 21; Smantser v. Belarus: para. 10.4).

Reviewing the juvenile case Koşti and Others v. Turkey, in which the proceedings lasted 2 years and 7 months, the ECtHR stated that, taking into consideration that ‘the case was of some complexity’, ‘while article 6 (1) requires that judicial proceedings be conducted expeditiously, it also lays emphasis on the more general principle of the proper administration of justice’. The ECtHR concluded that as a result of ‘the particular circumstances of the case’ article 6 of the ECHR had not been violated (paras 35–37).

In the juvenile case Ferrantelli and Santangelo v. Italy, the ECtHR decided to the contrary, stating that article 6 of the ECHR had not been complied with, notwithstanding the complex nature of the case, as ‘the applicants were not convicted with final effect until sixteen years after the events, which had occurred when they were still minors’ (paras 42 and 43).

Conduct of the accused

Another criterion to be considered in determining what constitutes ‘reasonable time’ is the extent to which the delay can be ascribed to the behaviour of the accused (McFarlane v. Ireland: paras 148–150). Elements to be deliberated relate to, for instance, whether or not the accused applied ‘delaying tactics’ throughout the proceedings (Unión Alimentaria Sanders S.A. v. Spain: para. 35), the recurrent changing of lawyers or multiple requests of hearing from new witnesses (König v. Germany: para. 103).

In 2011, the HRC decided in the juvenile case Emelysifa Jessop v. New Zealand that the excessive length of the proceedings could partly be attributed to the conduct of the juvenile defendant and her lawyer. Despite the proceedings, including appeals, taking a total of 9 years, the HRC decided that ‘in the specific circumstances of the case’, neither article 14 (3)(c) nor 14 (4) of the ICCPR had been violated (paras 8.4 and 8.5; see also, Ellis, 2014). This decision is particularly concerning as the case involved a juvenile defendant. The attribution of fault to the juvenile in this case can be considered contrary to the CRC core principles on the best interests of the child (Art. 3 CRC) and the right of the child to survival and development (Art. 6 (2) CRC).

Conduct of the relevant administrative and judicial authorities

State parties are required to ‘organise their system of administration of justice in such a manner as to ensure an effective and expeditious disposal of the cases’ (Lumanog and Santos v. Philippines: para. 8.5). Time may be regarded as unreasonable if, for example, proceedings are delayed due to periods of unexplained inactivity on the side of the relevant authorities (Pishchalnikov v. Russia: para. 51) or a disproportionate time required to finish particular actions, such as the production or transfer of certain documents (Bunkate v. the Netherlands: paras 22 and 23; Pinkney v. Canada: para. 22).

As an example, in the juvenile case Vyacheslav Berezhnoy v. Russian Federation (2016), the HRC determined that ‘in the absence of any pertinent explanation by the State party regarding this significant delay in the adjudication of a case concerning a juvenile held in detention’ (which process took over a year), articles 10 (2)(b) and article 14 (3)(c) of the ICCPR had been violated (para. 9.4; see also, Krasnova v. Kyrgyzstan: para. 8.7).

What is at stake for the accused/applicant

An additional criterion captured in the ECtHR’s case law is the consideration of the importance of ‘what is at stake’ for the applicant in the proceeding (Frydlender v. France: para. 43; Oršuš and Others v. Croatia: para. 109; Sürmeli v. Germany: para. 128). Across a variety of related literature, this specific criterion is further clarified. ‘The impact of the proceedings on the suspect or the accused’s life could be considered as the main factor of relevance for the Court’ (Henzelin and Rordorf, 2014). Trechsel (2005) argues that ‘the higher the stakes and more pressing the issue for the accused, the stronger the obligations on the authorities to act diligently to avoid any delay’. Renucci (2005) further argues that ‘the consequences of the case for the applicant’s personal and professional life are studied, so that periods usually considered to be reasonable may cease to be so if exceptional diligence is required’. Calvez and Régis (2018) highlight that certain cases demand expeditiousness and should therefore be considered as ‘priority cases’.

As addressed in the section on ‘the implications of delay’, impacts for juvenile defendants may include detrimental consequences for their physical and psychological well-being, diminished educational and employment opportunities, reduced deterrent effect, potential recidivism and it may effect their trial process.

The ECtHR recalls in the case Abdoella v. the Netherlands, that the criterion ‘what is at stake’ for the applicant must be considered in the ‘reasonable time’ assessment of proceedings. ‘Persons held in detention pending trial are entitled to “special diligence” on the part of the competent authorities’ and detention is ‘a factor to be considered’ during the ‘reasonable time’ determination (para. 24; see also, Council of Europe, 2018: para. 294).⁸

Further, although the ECtHR decided in the juvenile case Koşti and Others v. Turkey that article 6 of the ECHR had not been violated (see section above on ‘complexity of the case’), it decided to the contrary in relation to article 5 (3). The ECtHR noted that despite factors of ‘serious indications of guilt’, ‘a length of preventive detention of over two years and three months, in particular having regard to the young age of the applicants’, could not be justified (para. 30).

In the juvenile case Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, the ECtHR stated that

… the applicant was a minor and thus, according to Bulgarian law, should only have been detained on remand in exceptional circumstances. It was, therefore, more than usually important that the authorities displayed special diligence in ensuring that he was brought to trial within a reasonable time. (para. 157)

Consequently, in both these juvenile detention cases, the ECtHR determined that article 5 (3) of the ECHR had been violated.

Albeit the HRC has not laid down the ‘what is at stake’ criterion in its case law, it does reiterate that absolute expeditiousness is required ‘in cases involving serious charges … and where the accused is denied bail by the court’ (Barroso v. Panama: para 8.5; Medjnoune v. Algeria: para. 8.9; Sextus v. Trinidad and Tobago: para 7.2).

In conclusion, it appears that the HRC and ECtHR apply the same ‘reasonable time’ assessment criteria on adult, as well as on juvenile cases. Furthermore, the HRC places to some extent emphasis on the vulnerable position of the juvenile defendant in its case law (see, Vyacheslav Berezhnoy v. Russian Federation and Krasnova v. Kyrgyzstan). However, it can be argued that if the importance of the ‘what is at stake’ criterion had been part of the HRC case law ‘reasonable time’ assessment, several decisions by the HRC, may have had a more favourable outcome for juvenile defendants (see, for example, Emelysifa Jessop v. New Zealand).

Cambodia

History

Throughout the period of the Khmer Rouge Regime between 1975 and 1979, the legal system and judicial infrastructure in Cambodia was entirely destroyed. The majority of the legal professionals, including judges, prosecutors and lawyers, were either executed or fled the country. Courts and legal institutions were disbanded and legal literature was discarded or destroyed. The impact of total destruction during this era still remains highly evident in the current judicial system (Coughlan et al., 2012; Donovan, 1993; Hor et al., 2012).

Following the withdrawal of the Vietnamese occupying forces, the various factions controlling Cambodia entered into the Paris Peace Agreement in 1991 (Short, 2004; Strangio, 2014). This led to a reduction of conflict in Cambodia and enabled the United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC) to enter and begin to implement its nation building mission, through enforcing peace and providing technical assistance to Cambodia to rebuild its previous governing structures and institutions (Hor et al., 2012; Strangio, 2014). Since that point in time, considerable reform and progress has been made, including the establishment of courts and various bodies and the enactment of legislation (Hor et al., 2012; Parliamentary Institute of Cambodia, 2016). However, these institutions and their governing structures remain relatively nascent and substantial challenges remain, particularly around governance (Strangio, 2014).

Legal and judicial system

Presently, Cambodia has a hybrid legal system composed of predominantly civil law elements combined with elements of common law and Cambodian customary law (Kong, 2012). The Cambodian legislative framework consists of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Cambodia (1993) (Constitution), domestic laws and secondary legislation.

The Cambodian judiciary comprised the Supreme and Appeal Court, the Provincial/Municipal Courts, as well as a Military Court (Kong, 2012). Furthermore, a hybrid court has been established, known as the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), more commonly referred to as the Khmer Rouge Tribunal, to prosecute the senior leaders of the Khmer Rouge and ‘those believed to be most responsible for grave violations of national and international law’ committed during the Regime (Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia).

Cambodia ratified the CRC and ICCPR in 1992, and adopted the AHRD in 2012. In accordance with article 31 of the Constitution, Cambodia has committed itself to recognising and respecting human, women’s and children’s rights provided for by the international treaties and covenants. The Constitution explicitly guarantees to protect the rights of children as stipulated in the CRC and to safeguard children from actions that are harmful to their overall well-being and educational opportunities (Arts 31 and 48; see also, Raoul Wallenberg Institute, 2015). This commitment was confirmed by a decision of the Constitutional Council in 2007, affirming that the international instruments that Cambodia has recognised, in particular the CRC, are a component of Cambodian law (Constitutional Council of the Kingdom of Cambodia, 2007).

Moreover, accessible jurisprudence in Cambodia remains limited. This situation results in part from the fact that the Cambodian legal system does not require the publication of judgements by the courts.⁹

Juvenile justice

The following section will provide an overview and analysis of the juvenile justice system in Cambodia, with a focus on expeditious trials and delays. This section will also respond to the third and final sub-question posed through an assessment and analysis of the extent to which Cambodia has incorporated the right to be tried within a reasonable time into its domestic legislation as set forth by the ICCPR and the CRC. In addition, examples will be presented of research detailing lengthy proceedings pending trials.

At the time of writing, Cambodia has a population of 16.4 million people, approximately of which half are under 25 years old (Central Intelligence Agency, 2018). Statistics from May 2018 show that a total of 1507 children, including 919 pre-trial detainees and 588 convicted juveniles, were detained across prisons in Cambodia, indicating an enormous rise of the juvenile prison population, compared with the 318 imprisoned juveniles in 2014.¹⁰

As described in the introduction, Cambodia faces substantial challenges with respect to the development of a specialised juvenile justice system, which is currently inadequately resourced to appropriately prioritise the protection of juveniles in conflict with the law (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2011: para. 76; UN Human Rights Committee, 2015: para. 15). Consequently, fundamental concerns often identified include insufficient access to legal representation, high pre-trial detention rate, lengthy proceedings pending trial and the common practice of prioritising custodial sentencing¹¹ (CCHR, 2013, 2018; Leang, 2011; LICADHO, 2015; Reimer, 2015; UN Committee against Torture, 2011: para. 14; World Vision, 2016). Furthermore, juveniles are often detained in adult prisons, in which they receive inadequate food and health care, as well as rehabilitation and reintegration programmes, and are regularly subjected to violence and abuse (LICADHO, 2015, 2018).

Positively, in July 2016 the Cambodian Government adopted the JJ Law after more than a decade of development, which came into effect in January 2017. The JJ Law focuses on ‘diversion and restorative justice as the main course of action, rather than punishment’ (UNICEF, 2016). More specifically, the JJ Law requires specially trained police, judges, prosecutors and social workers in juvenile justice, child-friendly interview and investigation practices, as well as includes provisions on diversion at the various levels of the legal proceedings and the establishment of Youth Rehabilitation Centers (Arts 4.9, 12, 22, 24, 31, 35, 44, 55, chapters 7, 10 and 13 JJ Law).

Under the JJ Law in Cambodia a ‘minor’ is defined as a person below 18 years of age at the time of having committed an offence (Art. 4 JJ Law). The age of criminal responsibility has been set at 18 years. Nonetheless, the court may penalise a juvenile aged 14 years and over ‘if warranted by the circumstances of the offence or the character of the minor’ (Arts 38 and 39 Criminal Code; see also, Art. 7 JJ law). A minor below 14 years of age is not permitted to be arrested, detained, prosecuted or convicted (Arts 7, 14, 17, 27, 39 and 49 JJ Law).

The right to an expeditious trial as an integral component of the right to a fair trial

Fair trial rights are guaranteed under various pieces of legislation, including the Constitution, the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), 2007, the Criminal Code, 2009 and the JJ Law. The Constitution provides in article 38 a number of rights and protections that form the underlying framework of fair trial rights. The procedural rights children in conflict with the law are entitled to have been recognised under the JJ Law (Arts 6, 22, 26, 33 and 51 JJ Law). Regrettably, the right to be tried within a reasonable time has neither been explicitly incorporated as a constitutional right under article 38 of the Constitution nor as a procedural/fair trial right under the CPC or article 6 of the JJ Law, which is in itself a violation of the CRC and ICCPR.

Nevertheless, the CPC and the JJ Law set forth several provisions on avoiding lengthy trial procedures. The CPC states that, in case of a procedure of immediate appearance, ‘a judgment on the merits of the case shall be pronounced within no later than two weeks from the appearance of the accused before the court’ (Art. 304 CPC) and in case of the appearance of an accused upon indictment ‘a judgment on the merits of the case shall be made within a reasonable time period’ (Art. 305 CPC).

In the case of appeal proceedings, a provision is stipulated by the CPC requiring that

When the case is received by the Court of Appeal, the President of the Criminal Chamber shall examine whether the case file is up to date and, if so, determine a date for the hearing. The Court of Appeal shall decide within a reasonable period of time. (Art. 387 CPC)

Moreover, the JJ Law has included elements of expeditiousness, requiring investigating judges, the Courts of First Instance and the Appeal and Supreme Court to process juvenile cases as priority cases, particular in case of detention (Arts 34, 45 and 57 JJ Law). Critically, Cambodia continues to lack legislation on maximum adjudication time limits for juvenile defendants pending trial (but not held in pre-trial detention), as recommended by the CRC Committee (see also, Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation, 2018).

The right to an expeditious trial as an integral component of the right to liberty

Under the Constitution, ‘the prosecution, arrest, or detention of any person’ must not occur unless it is undertaken in compliance with the law (Art. 38). The CPC states that as a general norm, charged persons shall continue to be at liberty (Art. 203).

Several provisions on expeditiousness in the context of detention have been included in the JJ Law. The overarching principle in the JJ Law, in adherence with the CRC, is that the arrest, police custody, detention and sentencing of a minor shall only be used as ‘a measure of last resort’ and for the shortest possible period of time (Arts 5 and 39). Furthermore, juvenile cases, particularly in case of detention should be prioritised, which is in line with the Havana Rules.

Exceptionally, juveniles, from 14 years of age, can be placed in pre-trial detention, under certain circumstances and conditions provided by the CPC and JJ Law (Arts 203–205, 212–214 CPC; Art. 39 JJ Law). The CPC has set pre-trial detention limits for minors between 14 and 18 years of age. Juveniles aged 14 and 15 can be temporarily detained for a maximum of 2 months for a misdemeanour and 4 months for a felony offence. Minors aged 16 and 17 for 4 and 6 months, respectively (Arts 212–214 CPC). Nonetheless, the CPC in addition stipulates that

The closing order terminates provisional detention. However, by a separate decision issued together with the closing order, the investigating judge may order to keep the charged person in provisional detention until the time he is called to appear before the trial court. … The decision to keep the charged person in provisional detention ceases to be effective after four months. If the charged person is not brought to trial within these four months, the charged person shall be automatically released. (Art. 249)

As this article specifically refers to ‘charged person’ it implicitly concludes that juvenile defendants may also be subject to being held in pre-trial detention for an additional 4 months pending their trial. Consequently, under the CPC, a 16-year-old juvenile defendant may end up in provisional detention pending trial for a period of 10 months, which is not in line with the recommendations provided by the CRC Committee (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2007: para. 83).

The CPC and the JJ Law do include provisions on alternate options available other than provisional detention. The investigating judge may place a minor accused of an offence punishable by imprisonment, under judicial supervision, which results in an accused person remaining free from incarceration, however, subjected to certain obligations and conditions set forth under the law (Arts 223–230 CPC; Art. 40 JJ Law). The JJ Law specifically requires that in the child’s best interests, judges of the Courts of First Instance, Appeal and Supreme Court to consider releasing the detained juveniles (on bail) pending trial, including in case of adjournments (Arts 45 and 57 JJ Law).

In addition, a new time limit in relation to detention pending appeal has been incorporated into the JJ Law, stipulating that ‘an appeal shall be heard within three months of it being lodged, unless there is an external obstacle outside the control of the Court’ (Art. 57).

In conclusion, elements of ‘expeditiousness’ have been included in Cambodian legislation, specifying duties for the Cambodian judiciary to guarantee decisions within a ‘reasonable period of time’ and to prioritise juvenile cases, particularly in case of detention. However, the explicit procedural right for juvenile defendants to be tried within a reasonable time, whether in detention or not, is lacking under Cambodian legislation, which is not in line with international standards. Moreover, apart from pre-trial detention, the ‘reasonable time’ period for juvenile cases has not been further defined under Cambodian legislation or case law.

Delays pending trial in Cambodia

The following section presents specific research and case study examples which support this article’s theme of excessive delays in proceedings for juvenile defendants pending their trials in Cambodia, including appeal, often while incarcerated.

The Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR) Trial Monitoring Project monitors criminal cases in the courts of Cambodia. In 2014, CCHR monitored a juvenile case in the Court of Appeal, which was subsequently analysed by the author of this article. The case involved a 16/17-year-old boy¹² who was arrested in March 2012 alongside two adults and formally charged with theft involving aggravating circumstances under the Criminal Code. The juvenile defendant was held in pre-trial detention for over 8 months until he received a guilty verdict for the offence by the Court of First Instance, and was subsequently sentenced to 3 years in prison. His lawyer appealed the case and the juvenile defendant waited for a further 15 months in detention before his appeal hearing was held. During the hearing, the defendant’s lawyer informed the court that his client denied his guilt of the alleged crime, claiming he had been asleep at home at the time the offence had occurred. During the process of arresting the two adult defendants, the juvenile defendant had been present in the same location and was subsequently apprehended alongside them. Notwithstanding that the two adult defendants corroborated the juvenile’s lack of involvement and declaration of innocence, the Appeal Court found the juvenile defendant guilty and his sentence was upheld. It can be concluded from this case study that the juvenile defendant spent nearly 2 years in detention until his final judgement was rendered.

A situational analysis of children in conflict with the law, conducted by Legal Aid of Cambodia (LAC) in 2011, provides further valuable insights regarding juveniles’ experiences throughout their legal process. The study consisted of interviews with 93 children in various prisons, of whom 32 per cent were detained on remand and 68 per cent were convicted juveniles. Findings from the study showed that 38 per cent of the convicted children reported to have been provisionally detained for a period between 1 and 6 months, and 41 per cent reported to have been held in pre-trial detention between 7 and 26 months (Leang, 2011). Reasons for the prolonged provisional detention reported in another study conducted by LAC included incompetency and high turnover of court personnel, complex cases, time limits to be considered irrelevant, high caseload, lack of sufficient resources such as court materials and courtrooms, and the involvement of financial incentives (Teeuwen et al., 2006).

Additional reports have highlighted challenges concerning the substantial backlog of pending appeals in Cambodia (UN Human Rights Council, 2013: para. 38, 2017: para. 20). Delays in proceedings pending appeal trial, particularly for juvenile defendants, were identified by the Center for Social Development’s Court Watch Project. In 2007, they monitored 22 appeal trials in Cambodia, involving 26 juveniles. The analysis demonstrated that 16 of the juvenile defendants had been deprived of their liberty pending appeal trial, of whom 2 waited less than 1 year, 9 over 1 year and 5 of the juveniles awaited more than 2 years. In one particular case, a juvenile defendant was detained in prison for over 4 years and 3 months, prior to an appeal hearing being scheduled (Teeuwen, 2009).¹³

It can be justifiably concluded that the adoption of the JJ Law has been a positive step forward and is urgently required given the rapid rise in the juvenile prison population. However, given the current systemic challenges within the criminal justice system, robust implementation of this law remains a critical challenge for the Cambodian Government (see also, Handley, 2016).¹⁴

Conclusion

It is clear that the right for juvenile defendants to an expeditious trial has explicitly or implicitly been recognised, albeit in differing language, under the relevant human rights standards ratified by Cambodia (excluding the AHRD). Notwithstanding, following the HRC and ECtHR’s case law analysis, it can be concluded that both human right bodies appear to apply a similar ‘reasonable time’ assessment criteria for adult, as well as juvenile cases and therefore are not taking into full consideration the fundamental differences between children and adults.

In addition, it appears that juvenile defendants are subject to increased protection under the case law of the ECtHR, compared with the HRC, as they apply a broader assessment when determining the ‘reasonableness’ of the delay, through taking into consideration the importance of ‘what is at stake’ for the applicant throughout the proceedings. Accordingly, there is a higher likelihood that the ECtHR determines that the ‘reasonable time’ requirement has been violated in favour of the juvenile defendant, in comparison to the HRC.

Regarding Cambodia, it can be concluded that despite the ratification of the CRC and ICCPR, the right to be tried within a reasonable time has neither been explicitly incorporated as a constitutional nor as a procedural right under Cambodian legislation. Nevertheless, as the legislation provides specific duties for the Cambodian judiciary to guarantee decisions within a ‘reasonable period of time’ and the ‘prioritisation’ of juvenile cases, particularly in case of detention, it can be argued that those are acknowledgments of the right to an expeditious trial and that consequently juvenile defendants are legally entitled to demand the protection of this implied right under Cambodian legislation.

Furthermore, it can be concluded that the pre-trial detention limits provided by law are not in accordance with the timelines recommended by the CRC Committee. Moreover, solely minimising the time period of provisional detention can be viewed as an insufficient approach to expeditious trial rights protection, as it still remains unclear for defendants and court officials, within which period trials should take place (especially when the juvenile is not held in pre-trial detention). The limited (accessible) case law in Cambodia, which could provide guidance of the ‘reasonable time’ requirement, further compounds this challenge. These described legislation challenges, coupled with the existing structural weaknesses, lead to lengthy trial proceedings, which can negatively impact the juvenile’s overall well-being, and may create a decreased deterrent effect, heightened chances of recidivism and affect their trial process.

Recommendations

Consequently, it is recommended that the HRC adjusts its criteria pertinent to the ‘reasonable time’ determination to bolster its efficacy and protective purpose and to place an increased emphasis on the acknowledgement of the vulnerable position of juvenile defendants. Similar to the ECtHR, the HRC should incorporate an additional criterion into its case law assessing the importance of ‘what is at stake’ for the juvenile defendant, in order to consider the negative impact of delays on juvenile defendants. Furthermore, the criterion pertinent to the ‘conduct of the accused’ should not be applied in the ‘reasonable time’ determination in juvenile cases due to their developmental nature and reliance on adults/lawyers to make decisions regarding their best interests. Finally, the HRC should within the ‘reasonable time’ determination consider specifying ‘reasonable time’ limits for juvenile cases, as recommended by the CRC, in order to acquire an additional reference to determine delay.

With reference to Cambodia, in order to meet the international standards regarding the right for juvenile defendants to be tried within a reasonable time, a number of actions should be undertaken. Cambodia should amend its national legislation with a view to explicitly incorporate this specific right as a constitutional, as well as a procedural right, modify its pre-trial detention limits and specify time limits between the various stages of the criminal process, in compliance with the specific recommendations set forth by the CRC Committee. Embedding adjudication time limits will be of particular importance for juveniles not being held in detention, as the focus of the new JJ Law is for the judges to consider releasing minors (on bail) while awaiting trial.

Cambodian courts should through the development of case law clarify and interpret the ‘reasonable time’ requirement. The reasonable time assessment criteria of the HRC, and particularly the ECtHR, including with the author’s provided recommendations, could serve as a useful guideline and reference point, contributing to an overall reduced level of direction for the judiciary.

In addition to the required legislation and case law development, the Cambodian Government should, in compliance with the JJ Law, appoint judicial officers and social workers to exclusively deal with juvenile cases, as well as increase the number of pro bono juvenile lawyers available. Furthermore, the judicial stakeholder’s capacity should be built towards the sound implementation of the JJ Law, including on fair trial rights, the prioritisation of juvenile cases and child-friendly procedures.

Finally, these recommendations could also serve as strong examples for other nations within the Southeast Asian region, ensuring their juvenile justice systems are in line with human rights standards. Within the Southeast Asian context, the AHRD should be amended to explicitly entitle everyone to an expeditious trial.

It is anticipated that successful adoption of these recommendations in Cambodia and internationally will ultimately contribute to expanded protection of the right for juvenile defendants to be tried within a reasonable time and a strengthened position of the juvenile defendant within the ‘reasonable time’ determination.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Prof. Dr Ton Liefaard and Dr Stephanie Rap for their guidance and valuable comments on earlier drafts of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author biography

Aekje Teeuwen is an external PhD Researcher at Leiden University Law School, Department of Child Law. She has been working in the field of juvenile justice and child rights in Cambodia for over 12 years.

References

American Bar Association Rule of Law Initiative (2014) The ASEAN Human Rights Declaration: A Legal Analysis. Washington, DC: American Bar Association.

Amoo

(2010) The jurisprudence of the rights to trial within a reasonable time in Namibia and Zambia. Namibia Law Journal 2(2): 3–30.

Barnert

Dudovitz

Nelson

Coker

Biely

Chung

(2017) How does incarcerating young people affect their adult health outcomes. Pediatrics 139(2). Available at: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/139/2/e20162624

Bleeker

(2016) Overschrijding van de redelijke termijn in jeugdstrafzaken in Nederland, Engeland en Wales. Masterscriptie Jeugdrecht, Universiteit Leiden, Nederland.

Burgess

(1982) Recidivism of Juvenile Burglars: A Perceptual View of Specific Deterrence. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Arizona, United States.

Burrell

(2013) Trauma and the Environment of Care in Juvenile Institutions. Los Angeles, CA: National Child Traumatic Stress Network.

Butts

Sanborn

(1999) Is juvenile justice just too slow? Judicature 83(1): 16–24.

Butts

Cusick

Adams

(2009) Delays in Youth Justice. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago.

Calvez

Régis

(2018) Length of Court Proceedings in the Member States of the Council of Europe Based on the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

10.

Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR) (2013) Fair Trial Rights in Cambodia: Sixth Bi-Annual Report. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: CCHR.

11.

Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR) (2018) Fair Trial Rights in Cambodia: Monitoring at the Court of Appeal. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: CCHR.

12.

Central Intelligence Agency (2018) The world Facebook. Available at: www.cia.gov/-library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cb.html (accessed 12 August 2018).

13.

Chadambuka

(2012) Serious offences and the right to trial within a reasonable time. Essex Human Rights Review 9(1): 1–10.

14.

Child Rights International Network (2016) Rights, Remedies & Representation: Global Report on Access to Justice for Children. London: Child Rights International Network.

15.

Coughlan

Ghouse

Smith

(2012) The legacy of the Khmer Rouge Tribunal: Maintaining the Status Quo of Cambodia’s legal and judicial system. Amsterdam Law Forum 4(2): 16–35.

16.

Council of Europe (2018) Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Right to a Fair Trial (Criminal Limb). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

17.

Dara

(2018) Slow process causes overcrowding. The Phnom Penh Post, 5 December 2018.

18.

Donovan

(1993) Cambodia: Building a legal system from scratch. The International Lawyer 27(2): 445–454.

19.

Ellis

(2018) Developing Human Rights before the United Nations Human Rights Committee and in New Zealand Courts: A Practitioner’s Perspective. Doctorate Thesis, Bundoora, VIC, Australia: La Trobe University.

20.

Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia. Introduction to the ECCC. Available at: www.eccc.gov.kh/en/introduction-eccc (accessed 12 August 2018).

21.

Feierman

Fine

(2014) Trauma and Resilience. A New Look at Legal Advocacy for Youth in the Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare Systems. Philadelphia: Juvenile Law Center.

22.

González

(2017) Youth incarceration, health, and length of stay. Fordham Urban Law Journal 45(1): 45–82.

23.

Grisso

Steinberg

Woolard

Cauffman

Scott

Graham

Lexcen

Reppucci

Schwartz

(2003) Juveniles’ competence to stand trial: A comparison of adolescents’ and adults’ capacities as trial defendants. Law and Human Behavior 27(4): 333–363.

24.

Handley

(2016) New law ‘urgent,’ but imperfect. The Phnom Penh Post, 29 December 2016.

25.

Henzelin

Rordorf

(2014) When does the length of criminal proceedings become unreasonable according to the European Court of Human Rights? New Journal of European Criminal Law 5(1): 78–109.

26.

Hor

Kong

Menzel

(2012) Introduction to Cambodian Law. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung.

27.

International Legal Foundation (2014) Juvenile Justice in the West Bank: Analysis and Recommendations for Reform. New York: The International Legal Foundation.

28.

Justice Policy Institute (2014) Sticker Shock: Calculating the Full Price Tag for Youth Incarceration. Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute.

29.

Kaija

(2013) Completion of criminal proceeding within a reasonable time in Latvia. Jurisprudence 20(2): 725–748.

30.

Kong

(2012) Overview of the Cambodian legal and judicial system. In: Menzel

(ed.) Introduction to Cambodian Law. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, 7–22.

31.

Kuijer

(2013) The right to a fair trial and the Council of Europe’s efforts to ensure effective remedies on a domestic level for excessively lengthy proceedings. Human Rights Law Review 13(4): 777–794.

32.

Leang

(2011) Report on the Baseline-Survey on the Situation of Children in Conflict with the Law in the Legal Process. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: Legal Aid of Cambodia.

33.

LICADHO (2015) Rights at a Price: Life inside Cambodia’s Prisons. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: LICADHO.

34.

LICADHO (2018) Time for Bail: Ending Needless Mass Detention. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: LICADHO.

35.

Listokin

(2007) Crime and (with a Lag) punishment: The implications of discounting for equitable sentencing. American Criminal Law Review 44(115): 115–140.

36.

Lubow

(2017) Timely Justice: Improving JDAI Results through Case Processing Reforms. Baltimore, MD: The Annie E. Casey Foundation.

37.

Mendel

(2011) No Place for Kids: The Case for Reducing Juvenile Incarceration. Baltimore, MD: The Annie E. Casey Foundation.

38.

Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation (2018) Juvenile Justice Law Strategic and Operational Plan 2018–2020. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation.

39.

Parliamentary Institute of Cambodia (2016) Legal and Judicial Reform in Cambodia. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: Parliamentary Institute of Cambodia.

40.

Raoul Wallenberg Institute (2015) A Measure of Last Resort? The Current Status of Juvenile Justice in ASEAN Member States. Lund: Raoul Wallenberg Institute.

41.

Reimer J (2015) A System Just for Children: Voices of Child Victims and Witnesses about Their Experiences in the Cambodian Criminal Justice System. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: Hagar.

42.

Renucci

(2005) Introduction to the European Convention on Human Rights. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

43.

Shepherd

(2000) Speedy trials for juveniles. Criminal Justice 14(4): 53–55.

44.

Short

(2004) Pol Pot: The History of a Nightmare. London: John Murray.

45.

Siu

Lam

et al . (2014) Time perception and time perspective differences between adolescents and adults. Acta Psychologica 151: 222–229.

46.

Stavros

(1993) The Guarantees for Accused Persons Under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

47.

Steinberg

Cauffman

(1996) Maturity of judgment in adolescence: Psychosocial factors in adolescent decision making. Law and Human Behavior 20(3): 249–272.

48.

Strangio

(2014) Hun Sen’s Cambodia. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

49.

Teeuwen

(2009) 20th Anniversary of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. In: Centre for Criminal Justice & Human Rights Blog. Available at: www.ucc.ie/academic/law/blogs/ccjhr/labels/Cambodia.html (accessed 12 August 2018).

50.

Teeuwen

Touch

Tep

(2006) Securing Children’s Rights in Cambodia: Pre-trial Detention and Legal Representation. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: Legal Aid of Cambodia.

51.

Trechsel

(2005) Human Rights in Criminal Proceedings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

52.

Tulkens

(2014) The case-law of the European Court of Human Rights concerning criminal juvenile justice. In: The Chronicle of the International Association of Youth and Family Judges and Magistrates, 4–12. Available at: http://www.aimjf.org/en/

53.

UN Committee against Torture (2011) Concluding Observations: Cambodia. CAT/C/KHM/CO/2.

54.

UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (2007) Children’s Rights in Juvenile Justice. General Comment No. 10, CRC/C/GC/10.

55.

UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (2011) Concluding Observations: Cambodia. CRC/C/KHM/CO/2.

56.

UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (2013) The Right of the Child to Have His or Her Best Interests Taken as a Primary Consideration (Art. 3, Para.1). General Comment No. 14, CRC/C/CG/14.

57.

UN Human Rights Committee (1992) Article 10: Humane Treatment of Persons Deprived of Their Liberty. General Comment No. 21, HRI/GEN/1/Rev.9.

58.

UN Human Rights Committee (2007) Article 14: Right to Equality before Courts and Tribunals and to a Fair Trial. General Comment No. 32, CCPR/C/GC/32.

59.

UN Human Rights Committee (2014) Article 9: Liberty and Security of Person. General Comment No. 35, CCPR/C/GC/35.

60.

UN Human Rights Committee (2015) Concluding Observations: Cambodia. CCPR/C/KHM/CO/2.

61.

UN Human Rights Council (2013) Role and Achievements of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Assisting the Government and People of Cambodia in the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. Report of the Secretary-General, A/HRC/24/32.

62.

UN Human Rights Council (2015) Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. A/HRC/28/68.

63.

UN Human Rights Council (2017) Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Cambodia. A/HRC/36/61.

64.

UN Human Rights Council (2018) Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Cambodia. A/HRC/39/73.

65.

UN News Centre (2015) UN lauds South Sudan as country ratifies landmark child rights treaty. Available at: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=50759#.Wg5qnndh3V0 (accessed 12 August 2018).

66.

UNICEF (2016) Q&A on the newly adopted juvenile justice law in Cambodia. Available at: unicefcambodia.blogspot.com/2016/09/q-on-newly-adopted-juvenile-justice-law.html (accessed 12 August 2018).

67.

World Vision (2016) The Status of Children in Conflict with the Law in Cambodia and Vietnam. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: World Vision.

68.

ASEAN Human Rights Declaration (2012)

69.

Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989)

70.

European Convention on Human Rights (1950)

71.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966)

72.

United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (1990)

73.

United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (1985)

74.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)

75.

Constitution of the Kingdom of Cambodia (1993)

76.

Constitutional Council of the Kingdom of Cambodia, Decision No. 092/003/2007 (2007)

77.

Criminal Code (2009)

78.

Criminal Procedure Code (2007)

79.

Juvenile Justice Law (2016)

80.

ECtHR (1968) Neumeister v. Austria. No. 1936/63.

81.

ECtHR (1969) Stögmüller v. Austria. No. 1602/62.

82.

ECtHR (1978) König v. Germany. No. 6232/73.

83.

ECtHR (1982) Eckle v. Germany. No. 8130/78.

84.

ECtHR (1989) Unión Alimentaria Sanders S.A. v. Spain. No. 11681/85.

85.

ECtHR (1992) Abdoella v. the Netherlands. No. 12728/87.

86.

ECtHR (1993) Bunkate v. the Netherlands. No. 13645/88.

87.

ECtHR (1996) Ferrantelli and Santangelo v. Italy. No. 19874/92.

88.

ECtHR (1998) Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria. No. 90/1997/874/1086.

89.

ECtHR (2000) Frydlender v. France. No. 30979/96.

90.

ECtHR (2006) Sürmeli v. Germany. No. 75529/01.

91.

ECtHR (2007) Koşti and Others v. Turkey. No. 74321/01.

92.

ECtHR (2007) Solmaz v. Turkey. No. 27561/02.

93.

ECtHR (2009) Pishchalnikov v. Russia. No. 7025/04.

94.

ECtHR (2010) McFarlane v. Ireland. No. 31333/06.

95.

ECtHR (2010) Oršuš and Others v. Croatia. No. 15766/03.

96.

HRC (1981) Pinkney v. Canada. No. 27/1978.

97.

HRC (1995) Barroso v. Panama. No. 473/1991.

98.

HRC (1997) Michael and Brian Hill v. Spain. No. 526/1993.

99.

HRC (2001) Cagas v. Philippines. No. 788/1997.

100.

HRC (2001) Sextus v. Trinidad and Tobago. No. 818/1998.

101.

HRC (2003) Evans v. Trinidad and Tobago. No. 908/2000.

102.

HRC (2006) Medjnoune v. Algeria. No. 1297/2004.

103.

HRC (2006) Taright, Touadi, Remli and Yousfi v. Algeria. No. 1085/2002.

104.

HRC (2008) Lumanog and Santos v. Philippines. No. 1466/2006.

105.

HRC (2008) Smantser v. Belarus. No. 1178/2003.

106.

HRC (2010) Krasnova v. Kyrgyzstan. No. 1402/2005.

107.

HRC (2011) Emelysifa Jessop v. New Zealand. No. 1758/2008.

108.

HRC (2016) Vyacheslav Berezhnoy v. Russian Federation. No. 2107/2011.