Her release angered many victims of the Khmer Rouge, who fear she is trying to avoid being brought to justice for crimes committed by the Khmer Rouge under leadership.
PHNOM PENH - Former Khmer Rouge social minister Ieng Thirith appeared before the UN-backed Khmer Rouge tribunal on Tuesday, the first time she has done so since her release to house arrest in September.
Ieng Thirith, who faces charges of atrocity crimes at the court, has been found mentally unfit to stand trial. She appeared before the Supreme Court Chamber, telling judges she was “well and better” since she was released, but her answers to the judges were long and sometimes not on topic.
Her release angered many victims of the Khmer Rouge, who fear she is trying to avoid being brought to justice for crimes committed by the Khmer Rouge under leadership.
Tribunal prosecutors have requested the court increase its stipulations of the house arrest, saying she should appear once a week meet with tribunal officials, have her identification and passport confiscated and be prohibited contact with witnesses, accused suspects and other court officials. Defense attorneys object to the motion, saying it would be a “restriction” of the rights of the accused.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the motion at a later date.
Ieng Thirith, who faces charges of atrocity crimes at the court, has been found mentally unfit to stand trial. She appeared before the Supreme Court Chamber, telling judges she was “well and better” since she was released, but her answers to the judges were long and sometimes not on topic.
Her release angered many victims of the Khmer Rouge, who fear she is trying to avoid being brought to justice for crimes committed by the Khmer Rouge under leadership.
Tribunal prosecutors have requested the court increase its stipulations of the house arrest, saying she should appear once a week meet with tribunal officials, have her identification and passport confiscated and be prohibited contact with witnesses, accused suspects and other court officials. Defense attorneys object to the motion, saying it would be a “restriction” of the rights of the accused.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the motion at a later date.