Ao An

20 November 2008: The International Co-Prosecutor issued the Third Introductory Submission. Supplementary submissions were filed on 18 July 2011, 24 April 2014, 4 August 2015 and 20 November 2015.

27 March 2015: The International Co-Investigating Judge charged Ao An with crimes under the ECCC’s jurisdiction. Further charges were laid by the International Co-Prosecutor on 14 March 2016.

16 December 2016: The International Co-Investigating Judge reduced the scope of the judicial investigation pursuant to Internal Rule 66 bis. On the same day, both Co-Investigating Judges notified the parties of the conclusion of the judicial investigation.

16 August 2018: The Co-Investigating Judges issued separate closing orders. The National Co-Investigating Judge dismissed the charges against Yim Tith for lack of personal jurisdiction, while the International Co-Investigating Judge indicted Ao An for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

19-21 June 2019: The Pre-Trial Chamber held three days of hearings on appeals against the closing orders, and issued a public report of the case and appeals.

19 December 2019: The Pre-Trial Chamber issued its considerations on the closing order appeals, finding that the Co-Investigating Judges’ issuance of the two conflicting closing orders was illegal. As the judges were unable to attain the required majority for a decision, the judges attached their respective opinions.

3 April 2020: After receiving communications from the parties, the judges of the Trial Chamber issued a statement noting that they had not received the case file from the Pre-Trial Chamber, and that “a formal decision of the Trial Chamber is not possible” in Case 004/02. The International Co-Prosecutor appealed to the Supreme Court Chamber, requesting (inter alia) legal certainty on the status of the case against Ao An.

10 August 2020: Noting that no agreement had been reached on whether Ao An is subject to the ECCC’s jurisdiction after thirteen years of investigation, the Supreme Court Chamber found that there was no definitive and enforceable indictment against Ao An. Considering the parties’ entitlement to a final determination of proceedings, the Supreme Court Chamber terminated the case against Ao An before the ECCC.