The European Union would like express its appreciation to you, Mr Subedi, for your report on the situation of human rights in Cambodia. The Union welcomes your efforts to help the Royal Government of Cambodia continue to improve the situation of human rights in the country and is ready to provide support for your work.
We have a few questions, first, in the report you compliment the Royal Government of Cambodia on the openness of its attitude, and the willingness of interlocutors to engage in constructive debate with a view to improving the human rights situation. And in the final paragraph of your report, you mention that you are willing to act as a bridge between the Government and civil society in order to, as you write, “foster an environment of cooperation rather than confrontation between them, end of quote. I wonder if you could elaborate a little on this and do you have any ideas on how relations could be improved? And how do you think a proposal for an NGO Law could affect the environment in Cambodia?
Second, One of the main points your raise in your report is that of land grabbing and land evictions. And these of course have also been a theme in previous reports of the Special Representatives of the Secretary General. Whilst acknowledging the advances made and the work done by the Government, this issue obviously still remains a contentious one, with the poor and vulnerable in particular lacking security of tenure. And our questions is in your opinion, is the national law, if fully enforced and adhered to by all actors, is it sufficient to stabilise the situation? And what useful and practical steps could be needed for the national law to be implemented? And to what extent is the government or actors on behalf of government, still carrying out evictions? And would you support a moratorium on evictions until such time as the process for dealing with those affected by development has been reviewed?
If a may, a third theme. Another issue in your report highlights that of defamation laws and the resulting restrictions on freedom of expression. This is in our view particularly alarming, not least in its broader implications for the country and for the ability of lawyers, for Non Governmental Organisations, for media, and for politicians to perform their duties within the legal system. We wonder if you please could comment on whether the defamation and disinformation laws themselves are particularly harsh or whether they are being interpreted and enforced to a level beyond the letter of the law and in accordance with the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution? And perhaps if you think the revision of the Penal Code will improve the situation?
Thank you, mr President.