Abstract

The appellate stage of the proceedings before the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) has received more limited attention than its pre-trial and trial process. In order to partially remedy this gap, this article highlights the unique features of the ECCC appellate system and how the Supreme Court Chamber (SCC) has given them effect in practice. Firstly, I consider the SCC’s restricted jurisdiction over immediate appeals and failed attempts by its judges to extend such appeals to jurisdictional questions. Secondly, I discuss the scope and powers of appellate review by the SCC in respect of alleged errors of law and fact, focusing on its innovative formulation of the standard of review of factual errors. This qualified deference standard has proven to be of broader import as it has informed the International Criminal Court Appeals Chamber's majority approach in the Bemba case. Thirdly, I focus on the SCC’s intervention in one area, namely the ECCC’s personal jurisdiction, and its reading of the ‘most responsible’ parameter as a non-jurisdictional and judicially unreviewable criterion. Taking cues from these landmark decisions, I appraise the SCC’s role in delivering fair and expeditious justice and securing the viability of the ECCC’s mission while acknowledging the more contentious aspects of its track record without which no account of its emerging legacy would be complete or balanced.

中文翻译：

---

ECCC上诉评估最高法院分庭的干预

摘要

柬埔寨法院特别法庭审理的上诉阶段比审前和审判过程受到的关注更为有限。为了部分弥补这一差距，本文重点介绍了ECCC上诉制度的独特之处，以及最高法院在实践中如何发挥作用。首先，我认为SCC对于立即上诉具有有限的管辖权，而其法官也未能将此类上诉扩大到管辖权问题。其次，我讨论了SCC关于所谓的法律和事实错误的上诉审查的范围和权力，重点在于它对事实错误审查标准的创新性表述。本巴案。第三，我将重点放在SCC在ECCC的人身管辖权这一领域的干预，以及它对“最负责任”参数的理解，该参数是非管辖性和司法上不可审查的标准。我从这些具有里程碑意义的决定中汲取了一些线索，我评估了SCC在提供公正，迅速的司法以及确保ECCC使命的可行性方面的作用，同时也承认了其往绩记录中更具争议的方面，没有这些方面，就无法完整或平衡其新兴遗产。