Civil Law versus Common Law
After the prosecution had questioned Chanda for an hour or so, international defense counsel Francois Roux rose to his feet in passionate objection. Roux argued that the prosecution’s common law-style cross-examination of Chanda was completely unnecessary and a “waste of time” in this civil law context where over a year of investigation had been done and the judges had thoroughly questioned the witness. Roux further suggested the prosecution was unfairly using this witness to build evidence against Ieng Sary and Khieu Samphan, other indicted Khmer Rouge officials whose names had been mentioned during Chanda’s testimony.
International co-prosecutor Alex Bates responded that Roux’s objections were the waste of time and that he would not dignify the other accusations with a response. Bates noted that Chanda was not heard during the investigation phase of this case and, therefore, the prosecution was seeking to establish his expertise and allow him to express his knowledge of Cambodian and Vietnamese policies.
Each of the four civil party groups spoke in support of the prosecution, including civil party lawyer Silke Studzinksy who insisted that everyone has heard Roux’s impressions about the common law and civil law systems and they need not be repeated. The Chamber ruled Roux’s objection “ungrounded” and allowed the prosecution to continue questioning Chanda.
Chanda will return tomorrow to finish his testimony on armed conflict. More...
Posts
