Defamation case: French court finally rules that Samdech Techo is not behind the death of Hok Lundy as alleged by Sam Rainsy

Phnom Penh: Finally, on October 10, 2022, a French court ruled that Samdech Techo Hun Sen, the Prime Minister of Cambodia, was not behind the death of Hok Lundy as alleged by Sam Rainsy, according to Mr. Ky Tech, Samdech Techo Hun Sen’s lawyer.

Mr. KY Tech, President of Samdech Techo Hun Sen’s Bar Association, joined a group of French lawyers representing Samdech Techo Hun Sen and Mr. Di Vichea to hear the verdict by the Court of Paris, France regarding Samdech Techo Hun Sen’s complaint against Sam Rainsy and related Mr. Dy Vichea’s lawsuit against Mr. Sam Rainsy for defamation.

Mr. Kitech added, “In the courtroom this morning, the judge gave reasons and perceptions that Sam Rainsy’s accusations against Samdech Techo were related to the helicopter crash involving HE Hok Lundy. As a victim, there is no clear evidence or confirmation and can not consider that Samdech Techo is involved in the incident or behind the incident.

“The judge’s argument also states that Sam Rainsy submitted various press documents with vague, complex and complex documents that the court could not accept as a valid reason,” he said. The court also gave another reason to confirm that Sam Rainsy did indeed defame Samdech Techo, which can not be denied.

It should be noted that in August 2019, Samdech Techo Hun Sen and Mr. Dy Vichea, through the lawyers of the Royal Government of Cambodia and the French lawyer, filed two separate official lawsuits to sue Sam Rainsy for [public defamation of individuals ] To the Court of Paris, France.

The decision to file the lawsuit came after Mr. Rainsy exaggerated allegations that Samdech Techo Hun Sen was behind the death of former Cambodian National Police chief Hok Lundy.

In connection with this case, Mr. Sam Rainsy was cited by a court in Paris, France, stating that Sam Rainsy did indefinitely defame Samdech Techo.

The crash was caused by lightning or a completely faulty engine. “) And avoid any investigation (” His assertion will be against him. “Part 4 continues).

He was also charged with inciting the assassination of Labor leader Chea Vichea in 2004. Lundy will present and confirm the warrant. In Hun Sen’s question, the first speech continued).

The accusations against Hun Sen of sponsoring two political conspiracies and seeking to conceal the situation are naturally damaging to the honor and reputation of the civil parties, as the facts described are likely to be criminal. Complicated. In the case of murder by incitement or participation in one of the most serious crimes punishable by the French Penal Code. Shall be punished under Article 221-3 of the Penal Code, which provides for life imprisonment.

Therefore, it will be considered as defamation of Hun Sen, which is not an accusation.

In addition, there is no competition in defense.

Their publication was not disputed and, moreover, was made up of the statements of the bailiff already mentioned, it was appropriate to examine the ethics which the defendants had pleaded.

Except for good faith.

In the case of defamation, when the writer claims that he is honest, it is up to the judge to determine whether he Speaking for the right purpose or not, there is no personal insult or not. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights, if these remarks are part of a general interest discussion and are based on sufficient facts, then if they find that these two conditions Filled with that to assess these four criteria more rigorously, especially with regard to caution in expression.

In fact, the general interest attached to the subject of the information is likely to make legitimate remarks regarding the proportions and necessities that restrictions on freedom of expression must have in practice, Article 10 of European Convention on Human Rights and Reality. Sufficient basis to establish the author’s sincerity assumes that the author of the alleged speech has, when uttered, a serious enough element to believe the facts of his accusation and to attend to his honor or reputation. Others and that remark. Do not fall into personal attacks beyond the limits of freedom of expression, caution in expression is estimated by the yardstick of consistency of this fact base and the intensity of the general interest.

It will be stated that personal disgust cannot be deduced from the seriousness of the accusation or the tone in which they are made, and that it is likely to interfere with the good faith of the author of the remarks. If it was before. And external to them, and if it arises from circumstances unknown to the reader.

Contrary to the condition of the body, the Deputy Commissioner of the National Police confirmed that the body of Hok Lundy was found lying about 5 meters from the helicopter without any injuries (Exhibit 29), while the Deputy Governor of Svay Teap District confirmed that the body The damage was severe and only the face was recognizable (Exhibit 32).

These inconsistencies and contradictions can cast doubt on the circumstances of the accident and may lead Sam Rainsy to question its cause, as journalist SO Naro estimated in 2013 that it was not. Explain that “due to lightning or other natural causes” and that “political factors” are likely to “provide another explanation” (Exhibits 44 and 45 in defense). .

However, the contradictions and questions do not establish the criminal nature of the incident and Hun Sen’s involvement in the death of Hok Lundy, although it appears from documents produced by insiders and outsiders. The body is scared. And that his death could have been desired by many.

In addition, Sam Rainsy did not provide any specific evidence to prove in his dissertation that the cause of the incident was an explosion and not as bad weather as the Civil Parties would present to disguise the actual circumstances of his death. Hok Lundy. In fact, news articles related to aircraft resistance to lightning to the assumptions applicable to aircraft that Hok Lundy has are too general to confirm or justify the statements of the Cambodian authorities on specific accidents. This. Moreover, even if the defendant mentioned in the hearing, as in the statement, accused the aviation expert’s statement on the basis that he would make a conviction, it must be noted that he did not make a confirmation report or Expert reports in this sense to the audience.

Finally, the communication of low-quality photographs of the wreckage could not be demonstrated in the unprofessional case that the destruction of the helicopter was due to an explosion rather than a crash.

However, the initial elements related to the circumstances set out above are complemented by the alarming fact that no serious investigation into the crime or technicalities was carried out after the plane crash. Let the dead lose their lives. A Cambodian police officer, son-in-law and supporter of Prime Minister Hun Sen, acknowledges his desire to conceal the circumstances of the accident posed by Sam Rainsy.

It arises from the whole that the facts of the facts relating to this accusation are trivial, while it is designed in such a way as to leave room for skepticism regarding Hun Sen’s assumption of action. Kill Hok Lundy.

However, it must be borne in mind that the prosecution’s allegations were made in the context of denunciations of human rights abuses by political opponents, which following the dissolution of his party and the imposition of several prison sentences for Defamation is forced. Came to France for the last time in 2015 and was unable to come to Cambodia to continue his investigation, moreover, it is further complicated by the context of political violence and extrajudicial executions.