Home / News / Urgent Appeals / CAMBODIA: Land grabbing leading to fraud charge and assault on owners
 

CAMBODIA: Land grabbing leading to fraud charge and assault on owners

January 3, 2007

[NOTICE: The AHRC have developed a new automatic letter-sending system using the "button" below. However, in this appeal, we could not include e-mail addresses of some of the Cambodian authorities. We encourage you to send your appeal letters via fax or post to those people. Fax numbers and postal addresses of the Cambodian authorities are attached below with this appeal. Thank you.]


URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal

3 January 2007
------------------------------------------------------
UA-002-2007: CAMBODIA: Land grabbing leading to fraud charge and assault on owners

CAMBODIA: forced land eviction (non-law abiding); police and military abuse; false charge against the victim
------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission has learned that in the morning of December 21, 2006, ten police officers, four of whom were armed with assault rifles and the rest with electric batons, together with about ten staff and workers, led by three men named Nou Seila, Thun and Hay, employed by the land development company PHANEMEX, assaulted Chum Vanny, 53, his wife, Noy Chamroeun, 51, and their two sons, when they protested against that company's grabbing of their land in Poh Toch village, Kompong Luong commune, Ponhea district, Kandal province, along Highway 5 from Phnom Penh.  In the assault, those men tied up the four persons and pointed gun at them. The victims managed to free themselves and ran away but the men pursued Chum Thanith, 26, one of the sons, caught up with him and repeatedly beat him with electric batons. He felt unconscious with open wounds at the top of his head and needed extended hospitalisation. The company has since occupied the land and started work on it.


CASE DETAILS:

The incident that led to violence was the third in the same month over the plot of land of 1.7 hectares Chum Vanny and his family have cleared and cultivated since the 1980s, but PHANIMEX has asserted Chum Vanny had sold it to them. As in previous years, in July of this year Chum Vanny began to clear and prepare that land to grow dry season rice when the flood receded.

The first incident happened in the morning of December 3 when his wife, Noy Chamroeun, started to sow rice seeds on that land while her husband was also there. At around 9:00am on that day, PHANEMEX representative Nou Seila went to stop her from sowing. An argument ensued. Noy Chamroeun challenged Nou Seila to produce documentation proving his company's ownership of the land so that both sides could resort to the authorities to resolve the matter. Nou Seila, apparently losing the argument, dismissed the challenge, forcefully asserted his company's ownership. He then assaulted her, grabbing her neck with both hands. She struggled to free herself from his stranglehold. In this struggle one of her hands hit his face. She failed to free herself and he forced her down to the ground and dipped her head into the water in the rice field. Chum Vanny then intervened to separate his wife and Nou Seila, and told the latter to produce ownership documentation and go together to the authorities for the settlement of the dispute.

In the afternoon Chum Vanny filed a complaint against Nou Seila with the local police, and in the morning the police summoned both sides to resolve the dispute, Nou Seila rejected Chum Vanny's request for 270,000 riels compensation for his wife's suffering and medical treatment, and for the presence of public officials whenever Nou Seila's company wanted to do anything on that land.
 
The second incident happened in the afternoon of 12 December when Chum Vanny and his family apprehended three ordinary tractors, an earth moving tractor, a bulldozer and a ploughing tractor from the same company driving across the same plot of land and also the adjacent plots that also belong to him. They caught the driver of the earth moving tractor and brought him to the commune office to settle the issue of trespassing. But at the commune office that driver, his supervisor and a company official rejected Chum Vanny's demand not to repeat their trespassing of his land.

The next day, December 13, Chum Vanny was sent a copy of a letter of request dated December 8, 2006, from Chroeung Khmao, deputy-prosecutor of the court of Kandal province, to the provincial governor to order Chum Vanny and Noy Chamroeun to temporarily suspend all activities on the contested land, in pursuance of a complaint of fraud filed by PHANEMEX against Chum Vanny. Chum Vanny and his family abided by this suspension order until the company moved to possess and work their land on December 21. On December 26, Chum Vanny was served a summons to appear before deputy-prosecutor Chreung Khmao for questioning on the charge of fraud as the company had accused him of having sold the land to it and then having no land to give in return for the payment.
 
As a matter of fact, Chum Vanny and his wife have sold two plots of land at other places to PHANEMEX, and a number of concerned local officials and witnesses have confirmed this sale. However, the couple have denied they had sold the contested land. PHANEMEX is owned by a woman named Suy Sophan who is known to have good connection with the ruling circle. This company has bought plots of land here and there in that commune over a number of years. Recently it has constructed several buildings and also walls in front of them in that particular village, and a shortcut road from Highway 5 to an ancient capital of Oudong which is a tourist site. Its walls have encroached upon villagers' land and also the land of the commune office.

On April, 2006, hundreds of villagers protested against the encroachment of their land. Currently, some 1,000 villagers have signed or thumb printed a petition protesting against the same company's encroachment on the commune office's land. The chief of Kompong Luong, Prak Peov, has expressed his resentment when the company had not informed him of its activities in his commune, had dealt with higher up authorities and bypassed the commune authorities, and had created problems in his commune.

The AHRC has further learned that there is a practice by certain rich and powerful people and the authorities themselves of resorting to criminal charges against those who have protested against their land grabbing to subdue or silence them. Considering the chain of events surrounding this particular land dispute, the charge of fraud against Chum Vanny may have been laid to silence him and end his protest against the grabbing of his land. If he had really sold the contested land to the company and had prevented the company to possess it, the company could and should have requested the court to issue an eviction order and then the competent authorities to execute this order to possess the land.

The AHRC urges the prosecution of the court of Kandal province to drop the fraud charge against Chum Vanny and order PHANEMEX to return the land to its owners, abide by the due process of law and prove its ownership of it as Chum Vanny and Noy Chamroeun had requested from the company in the first place. Should it fail to prove its ownership, its owner, Suy Sophan, and her responsible employees should be prosecuted for infringement upon other people's land as stipulated in articles 248, 249, 250, 251, 253 and 254 of the land law of 2001. The same prosecution should order an investigation into Nou Seila's assault and battery on Noy Chamroeun on December 3, and the assault and battery on Chum Thanith by the men employed by the company on December 21, 2006. All those responsible for the offences should be brought to justice.


SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write letters to the authorities listed below to intervene to drop the fraud charge against Chum Vanny, get PHANEMEX company to return the contested land to its rightful owners, Chum Vanny and Noy Chamroeun, urge it to abide by the due process of law to prove those owners had actually sold the land to it and seek a court eviction order to possess the land. If it cannot prove that sale, then its owner and responsible employees should be prosecuted respectively for infringement of land belonging to others and for the offences against Noy Chamroeun and Chum Thanith.


Sample letter:


Dear_________,

CAMBODIA: Land grabbing leading to fraud charge and assault on owners

Name of the victim:
1. Chum Vanny (53), farmer, Poh Toch village, Kompong Luang district, Ponhea Loeu district, Kandal province, Cambodia, charged with a fraud contract
2. Noy Chamroeun (51), wife of Chum Vanny
3. Chum Thanith (26), one of sons of Chum Vanny, severely injured by police attack
4. the other son of Chun Vanny
Alleged perpetrators:
1. 3 representatives from PHANEMEX Company named, Nou Seila, Thun, Hay
2. 10 armed police officers
3. 10 villagers led by the PHANEMEX Company
Place of the incident: Chum Vanny's rice farm at Poh Toch village, Kompong Luang district, Ponhea Loeu district, Kandal province
Date of the incident: from 3 to 21 December 2006


I am writing to request you to immediately intervene to drop the fraud charge against Chum Vanny, 53, laid by the prosecution of the court of Kandal province following a suit filed by land development company PHANEMEX while he and his family protested against the company's forceful move to take possession of his land. You should also intervene to enable Chum Vanny to repossess this land of 1.7 hectares which is located in Poh Toch village, Kompong Luang district, Ponhea Loeu district, Kandal province and which this company has already occupied.

I have learned that on December 3 the company had prevented the owners of the land from growing rice on it and on December 12 let its tractor trespass it and destroy the crop on it. It ignored all protests by the owners. Then on December 21 it moved in a forceful way to occupy and start working on it when company officials named Nou Seila, Thun and Hay led ten police officers, four of whom armed with assault rifles and the rest with electric batons, and about ten workers and an earth moving tractor to take possession of the land and met with protest from Chum Vanny, his wife, Noy Chamroeun, 51, his two sons and other relatives.

All the men employed by the company broke up the protest by tying Chum Vanny, Noy Chamroeun, and their sons with strings and pointing gunbarrels at each of them. The victims wiggled free and ran away. But those men pursued Chum Thanith, 26, one of the sons, caught up with him and was repeatedly chocked and beaten with electric batons. He was badly electrocuted and suffered injuries at the top of his top. He felt unconscious on the spot and needed extended hospitalization.

I have also learned with surprise that the day following the incident of December 12, Chum Vanny was sent a copy of a letter of request dated December 8, 2006, from Chroeung Khmao, deputy-prosecutor of the court of Kandal province, to the provincial governor to order Chum Vanny and Noy Chamroeun to temporarily suspend all activities on the contested land, in pursuance of a complaint of fraud filed by PHANEMEX against Chum Vanny. He and his family had abided by this order until the company moved to possess their land on December 21. On December 26, Chum Vanny was served a summons to appear before deputy-prosecutor Chreung Khmao on December 27 for questioning on the fraud charge. He has learned from the deputy prosecutor that the company had accused him of having sold the land to it and then having no land to give in return for the payment.
 
I am wondering whether charging with such criminal offences is simply a cheaper way to silence protesters and in this case to silence Chum Vanny and end his protest to repossess his land, regardless whether it is unjust and immoral. It has been widely known that in Cambodia the prosecution and courts can be easily influenced by the rich and powerful. The speed with which the prosecution charged Chum Vanny and summoned him for questioning seems to confirm this corrupt practice in the Cambodian judiciary.
 
I have further learned that Chum Vanny and his wife have sold two plots of land at other places to PHANEMEX, and a number of concerned local officials and witnesses have confirmed this sale. They have however denied they had sold the contested land. PHANEMEX has bought plots of land here and there in that commune over a number of years and has constructed several buildings and also walls in front of them in that particular village, and a shortcut road from Highway 5 to an ancient capital of Oudong which is a tourist site. Its walls have encroached upon villagers' land and also the land of the commune office. 

On April 17, 2006, hundreds of villagers protested against the encroachment on their land. Currently, some 1,000 villagers have signed or thumb printed a petition protesting against the same company's encroachment on the commune office's land. The chief of Kompong Luong, Prak Peov, has expressed his resentment when the company had not informed him of its activities in his commune, had dealt with higher up authorities and bypassed the commune authorities, and had created problems in his commune.

I therefore request you to urge the prosecution of the court of Kandal province to drop the fraud charge against Chum Vanny and let him repossess his land, order PHANEMEXC to abide by the due process of law, prove its ownership of that land as Chum Vanny and Noy Chamroeun had demanded in the first place. It can then get the court to issue an order to evict the couple and then peacefully take possession of the land. If it fails to prove its ownership, Suy Sophan, its owner, and her responsible employees should be prosecuted for infringement upon other people's land as stipulated in articles 248, 249, 250, 251, 253 and 254 of the land law of 2001. The prosecution should also order an investigation into Nou Seila's assault and battery on Noy Chamroeun on December 3, and the beating and wounding of Chum Thanith by the men employed by the company on December 21, 2006, and bring those responsible to justice.

I also request you to take all necessary steps to end the practice of criminal charges against protesters of land grabbing to subdue and silence them.

I look forward your immediate intervention on this important matter.

Yours sincerely,

----------------
PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTER TO:

1. Mr. Samdech Hun Sen
Prime Minister
Cabinet of the Prime Minister
No. 38, Russian Federation Street
Phnom Penh
CAMBODIA
Tel: +855-23-21 98 98
Fax: +855-23-36 06 66
E-mail: cabinet1b@camnet.com.kh 

2. Mr. Samdech Chea Sim
Senate president
Chamcar Mon State Palace
Pheah Norodom Blvd
Phnom Penh
CAMBODIA
Tel: +855-23-21 1441-3
Fax: +855-23-21 1446
Email: info@senate.gov.kh

3. Mr. Samdech Heng Samrin
President of National Assembly
Sothearos Street
Phnom Penh
CAMBODIA
Tel: +855-23-21 41 36/21 77 68
Fax: +855-23-21 7769
Email: sgimsan@yahoo.com

4. Mr. Ang Vong Vathna
Minster of Justice
No 240, Sothearos Blvd.
Phnom Penh
CAMBODIA
Fax: + 855-23-36 41 19/21 66 22

5. General Hok Lundy
National Police Commissioner
General-Commisariat of National Police
Phnom Penh
CAMBODIA
Tel/Fax: +855-23-21 65 85/22 09 52

6. Ms Margo Picken
Director
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights - Cambodia
N¢X 10, Street 302
Sangkat Boeng Keng Kang I
Khan Chamcar Mon
Phnom Penh
CAMBODIA
Tel: +855-23-987 671 / 987 672, 993 590 / 993 591 or +855 23 216 342
Fax: +855-23-212 579, 213 587

7. Prof. Yash Ghai
Special Representative of the Secretary-General for human rights in Cambodia
Attn: Ms. Marianne Haugaard
Room 3-080
OHCHR-UNOG
8-14 Avenue de la Paix
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Tel: +41 22 91 79214
Fax: +41 22 91 79018 (ATTENTION: SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE CAMBODIA)


Thank you.
Urgent Appeal Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ahrchk@ahrchk.org)

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Case
Document ID :
UA-002-2007
Countries :
Document Actions
Share |
Subscribe to our Mailing List
Follow AHRC
Extended Introduction: Urgent Appeals, theory and practice

A need for dialogue

Many people across Asia are frustrated by the widespread lack of respect for human rights in their countries.  Some may be unhappy about the limitations on the freedom of expression or restrictions on privacy, while some are affected by police brutality and military killings.  Many others are frustrated with the absence of rights on labour issues, the environment, gender and the like. 

Yet the expression of this frustration tends to stay firmly in the private sphere.  People complain among friends and family and within their social circles, but often on a low profile basis. This kind of public discourse is not usually an effective measure of the situation in a country because it is so hard to monitor. 

Though the media may cover the issues in a broad manner they rarely broadcast the private fears and anxieties of the average person.  And along with censorship – a common blight in Asia – there is also often a conscious attempt in the media to reflect a positive or at least sober mood at home, where expressions of domestic malcontent are discouraged as unfashionably unpatriotic. Talking about issues like torture is rarely encouraged in the public realm.

There may also be unwritten, possibly unconscious social taboos that stop the public reflection of private grievances.  Where authoritarian control is tight, sophisticated strategies are put into play by equally sophisticated media practices to keep complaints out of the public space, sometimes very subtly.  In other places an inner consensus is influenced by the privileged section of a society, which can control social expression of those less fortunate.  Moral and ethical qualms can also be an obstacle.

In this way, causes for complaint go unaddressed, un-discussed and unresolved and oppression in its many forms, self perpetuates.  For any action to arise out of private frustration, people need ways to get these issues into the public sphere.

Changing society

In the past bridging this gap was a formidable task; it relied on channels of public expression that required money and were therefore controlled by investors.  Printing presses were expensive, which blocked the gate to expression to anyone without money.  Except in times of revolution the media in Asia has tended to serve the well-off and sideline or misrepresent the poor.

Still, thanks to the IT revolution it is now possible to communicate with large audiences at little cost.  In this situation there is a real avenue for taking issues from private to public, regardless of the class or caste of the individual.

Practical action

The AHRC Urgent Appeals system was created to give a voice to those affected by human rights violations, and by doing so, to create a network of support and open avenues for action.  If X’s freedom of expression is denied, if Y is tortured by someone in power or if Z finds his or her labour rights abused, the incident can be swiftly and effectively broadcast and dealt with. The resulting solidarity can lead to action, resolution and change. And as more people understand their rights and follow suit, as the human rights consciousness grows, change happens faster. The Internet has become one of the human rights community’s most powerful tools.   

At the core of the Urgent Appeals Program is the recording of human rights violations at a grass roots level with objectivity, sympathy and competence. Our information is firstly gathered on the ground, close to the victim of the violation, and is then broadcast by a team of advocates, who can apply decades of experience in the field and a working knowledge of the international human rights arena. The flow of information – due to domestic restrictions – often goes from the source and out to the international community via our program, which then builds a pressure for action that steadily makes its way back to the source through his or her own government.   However these cases in bulk create a narrative – and this is most important aspect of our program. As noted by Sri Lankan human rights lawyer and director of the Asian Human Rights Commission, Basil Fernando:

"The urgent appeal introduces narrative as the driving force for social change. This idea was well expressed in the film Amistad, regarding the issue of slavery. The old man in the film, former president and lawyer, states that to resolve this historical problem it is very essential to know the narrative of the people. It was on this basis that a court case is conducted later. The AHRC establishes the narrative of human rights violations through the urgent appeals. If the narrative is right, the organisation will be doing all right."

Patterns start to emerge as violations are documented across the continent, allowing us to take a more authoritative, systemic response, and to pinpoint the systems within each country that are breaking down. This way we are able to discover and explain why and how violations take place, and how they can most effectively be addressed. On this path, larger audiences have opened up to us and become involved: international NGOs and think tanks, national human rights commissions and United Nations bodies.  The program and its coordinators have become a well-used tool for the international media and for human rights education programs. All this helps pave the way for radical reforms to improve, protect and to promote human rights in the region.