In a decision rendered on 16 February 2011, the Trial Chamber of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia rejected Defence applications seeking the immediate release of the Accused Persons Nuon Chea, Khieu Samphan and Ieng Thirith.
The Pre-Trial Chamber ordered the Accused Persons to remain in provisional detention until they were brought before the Trial Chamber in a decision without reasoning rendered on 13 January 2011. The Pre-Trial Chamber subsequently issued reasoning for the continued detention on 21 January 2011. Following the decision of the Pre-Trial Chamber, the Accused Persons filed applications for their immediate release to the Trial Chamber. The Trial Chamber conducted an oral hearing related to the applications on 31 January 2011.
In its decision, the Trial Chamber found that the delay in issuing reasoning for the continued detention resulted in a breach of the Accused Persons’ rights, but that the nature of the remedy in consequence of this breach may be assessed at the end of the trial. Furthermore, the Trial Chamber found that continued detention is necessary to ensure the presence of the Accused Persons at trial.
The decision from the Trial Chamber can be downloaded from: http://www.eccc.gov.kh/english/cabinet/courtDoc/889/E50_EN.PDF
In a decision rendered on 16 February 2011, the Trial Chamber of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia rejected Defence applications seeking the immediate release of the Accused Persons Nuon Chea, Khieu Samphan and Ieng Thirith.
The Pre-Trial Chamber ordered the Accused Persons to remain in provisional detention until they were brought before the Trial Chamber in a decision without reasoning rendered on 13 January 2011. The Pre-Trial Chamber subsequently issued reasoning for the continued detention on 21 January 2011. Following the decision of the Pre-Trial Chamber, the Accused Persons filed applications for their immediate release to the Trial Chamber. The Trial Chamber conducted an oral hearing related to the applications on 31 January 2011.
In its decision, the Trial Chamber found that the delay in issuing reasoning for the continued detention resulted in a breach of the Accused Persons’ rights, but that the nature of the remedy in consequence of this breach may be assessed at the end of the trial. Furthermore, the Trial Chamber found that continued detention is necessary to ensure the presence of the Accused Persons at trial.