VZCZCXRO2301
OO RUEHCHI RUEHDT RUEHHM RUEHNH
DE RUEHPF #0716/01 2661135
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 231135Z SEP 09
FM AMEMBASSY PHNOM PENH
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 1209
INFO RUCNASE/ASEAN MEMBER COLLECTIVE PRIORITY

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PHNOM PENH 000716 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR EAP/MLS, DRL 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV PHUM PREL KJUS CB
SUBJECT: COURT ACQUITS SRP PARLIAMENTARIAN HO VANN OF 
DEFAMATION; FINES JOURNALISTS UNDER PRESS LAW 
 
REF: PHNOM PENH 413 
 
SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED 
 
¶1.  (SBU) SUMMARY: In a surprise verdict September 22, the 
Phnom Penh Municipal Court acquitted opposition 
Parliamentarian Ho Vann of defamation charges, but fined 
Cambodia Daily editor-in-chief Kevin Doyle and journalist Nou 
Vannarinn for violating the Press Law on publishing 
retractions.  The plaintiffs--22 RCAF officials who sued as a 
unit--have 30 days to appeal.  It remains unclear whether Ho 
Vann's parliamentary immunity will be restored by a 
two-thirds vote in the National Assembly.  END SUMMARY. 
 
------------------ 
Surprise Acquittal 
------------------ 
 
¶2.  (SBU) The Phnom Penh Municipal Court surprised observers 
September 22, when Judge Suon Visal acquitted opposition 
Parliamentarian Ho Vann, a member of the Sam Rainsy Party, of 
all charges relating to a defamation complaint filed by 22 
Royal Cambodian Armed Forces (RCAF) soldiers.  The judge 
stated that based on Ho Vann's actions to clarify what he 
said were misquotes by The Cambodia Daily reporter Nou 
Vannarinn, and the newspaper's inability to provide the 
original interview notes of the conversation, there was no 
evidence that Ho Vann intended to defame the soldiers. 
 
--------------------------------------------- - 
Journalists Liable for Civil Infraction; Fined 
--------------------------------------------- - 
 
¶3.  (SBU) The court also dismissed defamation charges against 
The Cambodia Daily editor-in-chief Kevin Doyle and reporter 
Nou Vannarinn, but found them liable under Article 10 of the 
Press Law, which stipulates how media outlets must handle 
requested retractions.  The Press Law requires media outlets 
to publish retractions or replies to statements in the next 
issue after receiving a request for retraction or reply; the 
retraction or reply must also be published in the same 
language in which it was received, on the same page where the 
original article appeared, and must be the same size font as 
the original article.  After the article in question was 
published, Ho Vann wrote a letter in Khmer to The Cambodia 
Daily requesting a clarification and claiming he was 
misquoted in the article, which was published in both English 
and Khmer editions of The Cambodia Daily.  But The Cambodia 
Daily published only an English translation of his letter in 
the "Letters to the Editor" section, although the original 
article appeared on the front page, and did not publish 
anything in the Khmer-language edition until a few days 
later.  The judge found the journalists liable for that 
infraction, and ordered each to pay a fine of 4 million Riels 
(approximately $1,000 USD), as permitted under the law. 
 
--------------- 
Case Background 
--------------- 
 
¶4.  (SBU) In April, 22 RCAF soldiers alleged that Ho Vann 
defamed them and was attempting to incite the public when he 
reportedly told journalist Nou Vannarinn that degrees earned 
by the soldiers from a Vietnamese military institute were 
"worthless."  Following publication of those comments, Ho 
Vann wrote to The Cambodia Daily, claiming Nou misquoted him, 
and clarifying his actual statements (reftel).  The 
clarification appeared to resolve the complaint until June 
22, when the National Assembly stripped Ho Vann of his 
parliamentary immunity in order to allow the charges to 
proceed.  Ho Vann thereafter departed Cambodia for the United 
States. 
 
¶5.  (SBU) The court proceeded against Ho Vann in absentia on 
July 17, although it charged him only with defamation (which 
leads to monetary fines), and not the more serious charge of 
incitement (which can lead to jail) as the plaintiffs' lawyer 
had originally requested.  Nou Vannarinn was initially the 
only other defendant, and he refused to speak during the 
hearing since he had no legal representation.  However, the 
judge suspended the hearing after a letter from The Cambodia 
Daily editor-in-chief Kevin Doyle was read into the record, 
in which Doyle claimed responsibility for publishing the 
article and asked the judge to charge him instead of his 
reporter.  The judge suspended the hearing until Doyle could 
offer his statement in court.  When the hearing resumed on 
September 9 with Doyle in attendance, the court charged both 
the editor and the reporter with defamation and the Press Law 
infraction.  The judge delivered his verdict as expected on 
 
PHNOM PENH 00000716  002 OF 002 
 
 
September 22. 
 
------- 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶6.  (SBU) The case against Ho Vann has largely been eclipsed 
by the defamation case against his National Assembly and 
party colleague, Mu Sochua.  In June, when the National 
Assembly stripped the immunity of both parliamentarians, Ho 
Vann expressed shock at the vote, claiming the complaint 
against him had been resolved through discussions between the 
parties.  Ho Vann thereafter departed Cambodia, did not 
attend any of the trial, nor was he represented by a lawyer. 
His acquittal this week stunned most observers, who believed 
a defamation conviction for both Ho Vann and the journalists 
was a foregone conclusion.  It remains unclear whether the 
plaintiffs will appeal or whether the National Assembly will 
restore Ho Vann's immunity.  For the moment, at least, this 
case is a welcome relief from the recent spate of convictions 
on defamation charges.  As Ou Virak, President of the 
Cambodia Center for Human Rights, noted following the 
hearing: "it's a little light in the darkness."  More likely 
is that the verdict in this case reflects the early attempts 
by Ho Vann to correct what he always said was a misquote, 
thereby limiting or eliminating any vestige of personal 
affront and provocation that seem to characterize many 
similar cases. 
RODLEY