Tuesday, March 31, 2015

# 107 Questions for Thierry Darnaudet & Samleang Seila at APLE


Dear Thierry Darnaudet and Samleang Seila

The following, to be found on the APLE website in relation to the arrest of Hang Vibol (H.V.), invites comment:

“Phnom Penh, Cambodia – In response to the article posted in the Cambodia Daily on 7 March 2015, APLE would like to clarify some critical points.

H.V. was hired at APLE in 2003 due to his experience working in child rights and protection. At this time, he had a clean criminal record and seemed ideally suited for the role. During his tenure, H.V. was also running an orphanage. In 2004, he left APLE amicably to focus fully on his work in the orphanage. There were no suspicions at this time that he had ever abused a child.

Thierry Darnaudet did not make the initial complaint of sexual abuse against H.V., nor did he pressure anyone to do so. Two French individuals reported their suspicions to Friends International, First Step Cambodia, and MoSVY. Friends International later reported the case to MoSVY as well and requested for an investigation. In July 2014, MoSVY requested APLE’s assistance in corroborating the claims.

Given Hang Vibol’s accusation that you, Thierry, were guilty of sex crimes yourself, surely it must have occurred to you (and you, Samleang Seila) that there was a clear conflict of interest here. Not only should MoSVY have never asked APLE to investigate under the circumstances, APLE should not have accepted the task.

APLE then started a preliminary investigation to gather more information and determine possible abuse. Some days later, APLE identified an adolescent who had previously lived in the orphanage; the adolescent stated that H.V. had sexually abused him during that time.

Was the interview with this young man videotaped? Did a qualified professional conduct the interview? How many people were present at the interview and was there any independent observer who can verify that the young man was not coerced into saying what APLE wants to hear or offered a bribe to do so.

For many years now APLE has been accused of paying children and their families to make accusations of sexual abuse against men that APLE wishes to see convicted of sex crimes. The case of David Fletcher is the one I know best – one in which the alleged rape victim says she was not raped and in which the medical evidence says she was not raped. APLE’s credibility vis a vis the production of witnesses who bolster APLE’s case is zero.


APLE immediately reported this to the AHTJPD. At the request of the AHTJPD, APLE continued its investigation and two more adolescents, who had also previously lived in the orphanage, were identified; they stated H.V. had sexually abused them. The three identified adolescents also indicated that more children in the orphanage were being abused by H.V. At this point, APLE reported the case to AHTJPD again. As APLE is an NGO, our capacities were then focused on the welfare of the children inside the orphanage.

If APLE’S primary concern is the welfare of children why is it that on so many occasions APLE has allowed abuse of children to continue until such time as there is evidence of the abuse and cameras can be present to record the arrest of the abuser? Surely, if the protection of children was APLE’S top priority, APLE would prevent the abuse from happening!?

To this end, APLE supported both action by the AHTJPD to investigate and MoSVY to remove the children from a potentially harmful environment.

Between August 2014 and February 2015, the AHTJPD carried out an investigation and obtained further evidence in this case. The AHTJPD, assisted by APLE, re-interviewed the three aforementioned adolescents and interviewed four witnesses in the case.

According to the time line you have presented here, APLE believed that it had strong evidence of Hang Vibol’s guilt in July or August of 2014. Why did MoSVY not intervene at this point and request that Hang Vibol stand aside from his job whilst an investigation took place.

Given the seriousness of the allegations (a man running an orphanage sexually abusing children in it) why did it take APLE six months to interview the children in the orphanage?

Why did APLE inform the film crew (CAMBODIA’S CHILD PREDATORS) that it was conducting an investigation into Hang Vibol, in the midst of the investigation, and allow the film crew to film? In so doing, APLE compromised the investigation.

Were this second lot of interviews conducted by professionals and videotaped?

In addition, the AHTJPD and a DoSVY official conducted interviews with fourteen children, who were living at the orphanage. APLE was not present during these fourteen interviews and had no contact with any of these children in the past. Based on the four witness accounts and statements of sexual abuse made by the three adolescents and seven of the fourteen children, H.V. was arrested by the AHTJPD on 2nd March 2015.

According to the time line APLE has presented it took 8 months to interview less than 20 children whom MoSVY and APLE had reason to believe had been, were being or soon could be sexually abused by Hang Vibol? This proposition lacks all credibility.

There is no reason why all of these children could not have been interviewed in a week. The are very good reasons why they should have been interviewed within the shortest possible time frame.

Does APLE allege that any of the children were sexually abused between July 2014 and March 2015? If so, APLE has quite clearly NOT put the welfare of the children first and, indeed, has been complicit in their abuse.

The kindest observation that could be made about the way in which this matter has been handled is that APLE is staffed by incompetent amateurs.

In the wake of this, APLE continued to advocate for the closure of the orphanage and transfer of the children to safe places. MoSVY assessed the orphanage and decided to close it five days later. The children were either reunited with their families or placed in temporary care centers for assessment and counseling. We fully support this action and are grateful to the organisations that have offered to support these children. APLE is liaising with these partners to ensure suitable care and counseling.

Should the children choose to pursue legal action against H.V., APLE has offered legal counseling and representation to all victims; accepting this assistance is optional.

I wonder, Thierry Darnaudet and Samleang Seila, if either of you are familiar with the concept that an accused person is innocent until proven guilty? It seems not since APLE has already decided that the children involved in this case are ‘victims’.

Having decided on Hang Vibol’s guilt APLE now has a vested interest in seeing to it that the courts arrive at the same conclusion as APLE. In any other country in the world this case would be thrown out of court immediately on the grounds that all the evidence has been tainted by APLE’s incompetence.

APLE knows there is no conflict of interest in this case; however, we are aware and understanding that others may feel differently. As a result, APLE has contacted another child protection NGO to partner in the provision of legal representation, if the victims ask us to do so.

What is the name of the other child protection NGO?

H.V. was charged with Indecent Assault with Aggravating Circumstances. These charges are based on the AHTJPD’s police file. H.V. has accused Thierry Darnaudet of fabricating these claims out of revenge and APLE of acting on this; however, Thierry Darnaudet has no role or influence in APLE or its investigations. APLE is an independently run, local NGO, which takes allegations of child sexual abuse extremely seriously and would never participate in, encourage, or support a case it knew to be untrue.

If, as is claimed here, you have “no role or influence” Thierry, what is the nature of your relationship with APLE? Are you on the board? Do you receive a wage?

Please explain the following, to be found on Facebook:

Good evening, I am Mr Thierry Darnaudet, president of French NGO Action pour les Enfants, working against travelling sex offenders in Cambodia (www.aplecambodia.org).We often work with FBI and ICE to deport US sex offenders from Cambodia back to the US. We and OBB south Africa are launching a petition (ring the alarm) addressed to the Dutch Minister of justice to ban the pedophile Dutch group Martijn and any similar groups. We have 104 NGOs from 35 countries in our side already signed up already (http://ring-the-alarm.com/signatories/) and we are seeking the support of US based strong advocacy groups against sexual exploitation of children such as yours and others. Can you kindly have a look at http://ring-the-alarm.com/ and see if you can be a part of our effort not to have a Nambla similar group in Europ? I thank you in advance. Thierry Darnaudet.


Home
www.aplecambodia.org
Action Pour Les Enfants (APLE) is a non-governmental organization dedicated to ending child sexual abuse and exploitation in Cambodia. Since 2003, APLE has partnered with local authorities to rescue children and bring perpetrators to legal account

As for the proposition that APLE does not pursue a case it knows to be untrue, this is palpable nonsense. You both know that David Fletcher did not rape Yang Dany. You have both known this since Sept 2010 when a doctor, in his report for the Phnom Penh Municipal Court, declared her to be a virgin still. You have pursued David Fletcher since then, and pursue him still today, because APLE would lose what little credibility the NGO has if the courts were to acknowledge that David Fletvher could not have raped Yang Dany and that the whole case against him was fabricated by APLE – with a good deal of help from some others whom shall remain nameless for the time being.

We invite qualified parties to contact us if they would like to independently review our involvement in this case. APLE is committed to transparency and honesty; we conduct investigations to the best of our ability and remain ever-focused on protecting children.

Given your commitment to “transparency and honesty” Thierry Darnaudet and Samleang Seila, I am here taking you up on your invitation to “independently review” APLE’S “involvement in this case.”

I can be contacted at the following email address: jamesricketson@gmail.com

Monday, March 30, 2015

# 106 David Fletcher's 50/50 chance of survival


Dear Foreign Secretary, Phillip Hammond

The doctors say that there is a 50% chance that Mr Fletcher will die. I imagine that this would be an enormous relief to you and to those within the Foreign & Commonwealth Office who have done all they could to prevent Mr Fletcher from receiving a fair trial.

On the other hand, there is a 50% chance that David Fletcher will live - in which case the question of his right to a fair trial will remain.

You can, of course, choose to remain silent, to bury your head in the sand, to turn a blind eye. Alternatively, you could instruct your staff to stop obstructing Mr Fletcher in his quest for a fair trial and do all they can to facilitate such a trial.

best wishes


Mr Ang Vong Vathana
Minister of Justice
Samdech Sothearos Road
Sangkat Chaktomouk
Daun Penh

30th March 2015

Dear Mr Ang Vong Vathana

re David John Fletcher
Dear Minister

Further to my two letters to yourself on November and December 2014, and of Feb 2015.

One week ago, in the depths of despair, English man David John Fletcher attempted to take his life.

Mr Fletcher, aged 70, had lost all hope that he would ever receive a fair trial in Cambodia for the offense of rape he was accused of in 2010 and found guilty of in 2011 in a secret trial.

Mr Fletcher has never once been interviewed by the police or by an investigating judge. At no time has Mr Fletcher been given the right, in accordance with the Cambodian Code of Criminal Procedure, to conduct a defense in court.

The alleged victim, Yang Dany, claims that she was not raped by Mr Fletcher. The doctor’s report prepared for the court in 2010 also says that Mr Fletcher did not rape Yang Dany; that she remained a virgin after the alleged offences.

Mr Fletcher is the victim of an unscrupulous non government organization by the name of Action Pour les Enfants. This NGO, run by Thierry Darnaudet, guarantees that it retains a high success rate (and hence funding from donors and sponsors) by accusing innocent men such as David Fletcher of sex crimes. Mr Darnaudet himself has been accused of sex crimes but his case never went to trial.

The doctors at the hospital tell me that Mr Fletcher, who has been in a coma for a week now, has only a 50% chance of surviving his suicide attempt. If he does survive I request that you instruct the relevant authorities to set a trial date for Mr Fletcher at the earliest possible time so that his guilt or innocence can be determined on the basis of facts and evidence available to the judges. This right has been denied Mr Fletcher for close to five years now.

Yours sincerely

James Ricketson

# 105 David Fletcher alive, if not well!


Phillip Hammond
Foreign Secretary
Parliamentary House of Commons
London
SW1A                                                                                                            

27th. March 2015

Dear Mr Hammond

Against the odds and contrary to doctor’s expectations, Mr Fletcher remains alive, though not well.

Working on the presumption that Mr Fletcher will live, I have arranged for a lawyer’s letter to be delivered to the offices of the Minister of Justice. A sum of money had to be paid by the lawyer, to the Minister’s staff, in order to guarantee that they would pass the letter on to him! This is the first time, in 20 years of coming to Cambodia, that I have (albeit unwittingly) paid a bribe to any official in this country.

I have redacted the name of the lawyer because I do not wish any third party to interfere with the new process that has been set in motion to secure for Mr Fletcher a fair trial – a fair trial that many, including the Foreign & Commonwealth office, have gone to great lengths to prevent from occurring.

The following translation of the lawyers letter is far from perfect but will suffice.

Law Office of XXX
Attorney at Law and Business, Consultant

Letter of Intervention Request

I, XXX, am a member of Council of Bar Association of the Kingdom of Cambodia, in the 7th term, and a lawyer who represents an accused, David John Fletcher, in a criminal case N­0 33 dated on January 12th, 2015 of the appeal court.

To

H.E. Ang Vongvathna, Minister of Justice

Objective: request for intervention on the appeal court to recognize and accept the appeal complaint of my client, David John Fletcher, male, 70 years old, British, dated on December 10th, 2014, which is his legal right, and take the case for retrial of criminal case N0 33 dated on January 12th, 2015 of the appeal court.

References:

-  Letter of lawyer representation dated on February 11th, 2015 of Mr. David John Fletcher.
-  Appeal complaint dated on December 10th, 2014 of Mr. David John Fletcher.
-  A judgment without presence of the accused N0 44 Kr1 dated on May 9th, 2011 of the Phnom Penh First Instant Court.
-  A warrant N0 25 Kr.3.C dated on May 16th, 2014 of the appeal court.
-  A judgment N0 236 Kr3 N P.P.BR.T dated on November 20th, 2014 of the Phnom Penh First Instant Court.
-  Article 301 of code of criminal procedure of the Kingdom of Cambodia in 2007 on lawyer representation.
-  Articles 65, 376, and 377 of code of criminal procedure of the Kingdom of Cambodia 2007.

As above-mentioned in the objective and references, I am pleased to inform H.E. Minister that my client, Mr. David John Fletcher, male, 70 years old, British, was extradited by the Thai government to Cambodia on September 30th, 2013 and put in jail in Phnom Penh prison (PJ).

Respectfully, H.E. Minister, I would like to clarify that while my client was detained in Thailand, my client was also accused by a prosecutor of the Phnom Penh First Instant Court on sexual rape in a criminal case N0 1551 dated on July 15th, 2010 made at a closed hearing by the Phnom Penh First Instant Court without my client’s presence and sentenced to 10 years in prison by a closed judgment N0 44 Kr1 dated on May 9th, 2011 of the Phnom Penh First Instant Court.

Respectfully, H.E. Minister, following my client extradition of Thai government to Cambodia, on October 17th, 2013, prison officers of PJ sent my client to Phnom Penh First Instant Court to inform him about the closed judgment N0 44 Kr1 dated on May 9th, 2011. In the judgment, the court decided to sentence my client 10 years in prison without my client presence or knowledge of the proceedings. At that time, my client absolutely refused the closed criminal judgment.

A prosecutor told my client to submit a complaint for retrial or appeal. My client responded that he did not have a lawyer and asked for one week duration to think about making a complaint to the Phnom Penh First Instant Court for retrial or appeal. He also asked the prosecutor to bring him to the court again on October 24th, 2013 to find a lawyer to represent him and a Khmer interpreter.

A week later, on October 24th, 2013, the prosecutor did not inform the PJ prison officer to take my client to the Phnom Penh First Instant Court as requested, which resulted in my client losing his right to apply for retrial or appeal.

My client is a foreigner who could not speak the Khmer language, did not have a Khmer interpreter, and did not understand the legal procedure in Cambodia and was not able to obtain a lawyer for legal representation.

Respectfully, H.E. Minister, without being present at the court, as requested, my  client submitted a complaint to the Phnom Penh First Instant Court for retrial his case on November 9th, 2013 but in return did not get any information at all. On December 24th, 2013 a prison officer told my client that the court did not accept my client’s complaint due to the noncompliance of administrative procedure.

On December 26th, 2013, a lawyer, Mr. YYY, received the right to represent my client to make appeal for the closed judgment N0 44 Kr1 dated on May 9th, 2011 of the Phnom Penh Court based on appeal complaint N0 915 dated on December 26th, 2013, but the appeal court decided refuse the appeal complaint of Lawyer, YYY, for trial based on a warrant N0 25 Kr. 3. C. dated on May 16th, 2014 of the appeal court.

On May 30th, 2014, my client, Mr. David John Fletcher, submitted a complaint for retrial against the closed judgment N0 44 Kr1 dated on May 9th, 2011 of the Phnom Penh Court. The Phnom Penh court accepted my client’s complaint and opened a hearing of my client’s complaint on November 20th, 2014. The court eventually decided to drop the complaint of my client dated on May 30th, 2014 by citing that the complaint was over the set duration for retrial complaint based on a judgment N0 236 Kr3. N. P.P.Pr.T dated on November 20th, 2014 of the Phnom Penh court.
  
Respectfully H.E. Minister, based on the judgment N0 236, dated on November 20th, 2014, of Phnom Penh Court, my client did make a complaint for appeal on December 10th, 2014. Concerning  the closed judgment N0 44 Kr1 dated on May 9th, 2011 of the Phnom Penh court, which sentenced my client10 years in prison, I submit that this is unjust for my client, that made my client could not accept the judgment because my client did not commit the offense as prosecuted by the prosecutor. The court did not comply with the legal procedure and decided to open a hearing without my client’s presence. And my client was denied the interrogation procedure outlined in th4e Cambodian Code of Criminal Procedure at the judicial police stage, the prosecutor stage, and the investigating judge stage whilst he was detained in Thailand.

In reference to the medical check on sexual rape of Phnom Penh municipal hospital N067/10 dated on September 8th, 2010, of the victim, Yan Dany, called Ny, Female, was born on July 6th, 1992, concluded and recommended that no mark was noticed on the victim’s body and the victim’s sex organ was not injured. The conclusion and recommendation of the Phnom Penh municipal hospital certified that my client did not rape the victim.
  
The judgment N0 236 Kr. N. P. P. Pr. T dated on November 20th, 2014 of the Phnom Penh court decided to drop my client’s complaint for retrial dated on May 30th, 2014, citing that the complaint was over the set duration, is that the court did not study on the statement of my client’s interrogation report, Mr. David John Fletcher, answered before the prosecutor of Phnom Penh court on October 17th, 2013, at 9 A.M.

Furthermore, my client did not thumbprint  the notice letter of the closed judgment which means that if my client thumb printed on the notice of the closed judgment counting from the date of receiving the notice, he had right to complaint for retrial 15 days and 1 months for appeal. If the set duration passed, my client did not make complaint for retrial or appeal; my client would lose right to the complaint. But in this case my client did not thumbprint the notice letter of the closed judgment, therefore means that my client still has right to the retrial and appeal.

Respectful H.E. Minister, related to the decision of the Phnom Penh court to drop my clients’ retrial complaint and the appeal court’s refusal to accept my client’s complaint for appeal by citing that beyond the limit time, this is not appropriate because my client is a foreigner who could not speak Khmer language and did not have a lawyer for legal representation and the prosecutor of the Phnom Penh court did not inform him the right to and duration of complaint for retrial and appeal which made my client lose his right of complaint for retrial and appeal, and my client did not understand the law and criminal procedure of Cambodia.

Therefore, as it is my purpose to access justice for my client, I would like to request H.E. Minister for intervention to the appeal court on recognition and acceptance of my client’s complaint for appeal, Mr. David John Fletcher, Male, 70 years old, British, dated on December 10th, 2014, which is suitable to the law, and take the criminal case N0 33 dated on January 12th, 2015, of the appeal court to retrial as appropriate.

Respectful H.E. Minister, please accept my highest respect.

What this boils down to is what the Foreign & Commonwealth Office has known for years:

- Mr Fletcher was denied a fair trial at the outset when one was held without his knowledge or presence to present a defense.

- Mr Fletcher’s right to a retrial or appeal have both been denied to him on purely procedural grounds – namely that he did not submit certain documents to the court within a certain time frame.

- Yang Dany, Mr Fletcher’s alleged victim, was not raped according to the doctor’s report submitted to the court. And she had denied that she was raped.

Why is it too much to ask of yourself Mr Hammond, as Foreign Secretary, that you request of the Cambodian Minister of Justice that Mr Fletcher be accorded the right to a fair trial? This is not ‘interfering’ with the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. It is merely a request that a British citizen accused of a crime be tried in accordance with the Cambodian Code of Criminal Procedure.

best wishes

James Ricketson