# Jurisprudence map — ECCC

A topic-by-topic map of where the ECCC's principal holdings live, built from the structure of the Court's own *Guide to the ECCC, Volume 2: Jurisprudence* (the "Digest"). For each topic, this map gives:

1. The chapter of the Digest where the holdings are catalogued
2. The principal authorities (with document numbers from the canonical table in `citation-format.md`)
3. Notes on what to verify before citing

**This file is an index, not a substitute for the Digest itself.** Use it to locate the relevant Chamber and decision; then verify the specific paragraph through the workflow in `verification-workflow.md`. A claim resting on the structure of the Digest, but not on the underlying decision text, must say so.

The Digest itself is available at `https://eccc.gov.kh/sites/default/files/Guide_Vol_2_Manuscript_EN_latest.pdf`. When project knowledge contains the Digest, defer to its current text over this map.

---

## 1. Jurisdiction (Digest ch. 1)

### 1.1 Personal jurisdiction — "senior leaders" and "most responsible"

**Principal authority:** Case 001, Appeal Judgment (F28, 3 February 2012), paras 45–80.

Key holdings:
- The term "senior leaders […] and those who were most responsible" refers to **two categories of Khmer Rouge officials**, which are "not dichotomous": (i) senior leaders who are among the most responsible; (ii) non-senior leaders who are among the most responsible. *Case 001, Appeal Judgment, para. 57*.
- "Khmer Rouge officials" is a **justiciable jurisdictional requirement** before the Trial Chamber.
- "Senior leaders" and "most responsible" are **prosecutorial/investigatory policy**, not jurisdictional, subject to narrow appellate review for abuse of discretion. *Case 001, Appeal Judgment, paras 60–79*.

**Internal divergence:** The Co-Investigating Judges in Cases 003 and 004 disagreed with the Supreme Court Chamber's classification, treating "senior leaders" and "most responsible" as genuine jurisdictional requirements (subject to a wide margin of appreciation). See Case 004/01, Dismissal Order (D308/3), paras 9–10; Case 003, Closing Order (Indictment) (D267), para. 37; Case 004, Closing Order (Indictment) (D382), para. 32.

**Pre-Trial Chamber view on appeal:** Personal jurisdiction decisions are justiciable before the PTC under the discretionary-decision standard of review. Case 004/01, Considerations on Closing Order Appeal (D308/3/1/20), paras 20–22.

### 1.2 Temporal jurisdiction (Digest ch. 1.2)

ECCC temporal jurisdiction: **17 April 1975 to 6 January 1979**, inclusive (UN-RGC Agreement, Article 1; ECCC Law, Article 1).

Evidence and facts from before or after this period may be used to (i) provide contextual clarity; (ii) demonstrate a deliberate pattern of conduct; (iii) establish by inference elements of criminal conduct, especially intent, occurring during the ECCC's temporal jurisdiction. Although crimes must have been committed within the period, facts and conduct (including intent) from before this period may be relied upon to prove an accused's participation in a JCE provided the facts/conduct continued during the period.

### 1.3 Bars to jurisdiction (Digest ch. 1.3)

- **Ne bis in idem** (Digest 1.3.1): the framework, including the assessment of the 1979 "People's Revolutionary Tribunal" against the standards of the ICCPR.
- **Pardon and amnesty under the 1996 Royal Decree** (Digest 1.3.2): scope, validity, applicability to domestic crimes. Major holdings primarily in the Case 002 closing-order decisions and Case 002/01 Judgment (E313).

---

## 2. Crimes (Digest ch. 2)

### 2.1 Subject-matter list

Six categories under the ECCC Law (Articles 3 new to 8):
1. **1956 Penal Code** — homicide, torture, religious persecution (Art. 3 new)
2. **Genocide** — 1948 Genocide Convention (Art. 4)
3. **Crimes against humanity** — incl. murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, persecutions, other inhumane acts (Art. 5)
4. **Grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions** (Art. 6) — limited to the international armed conflict with Vietnam
5. **Destruction of cultural property** — 1954 Hague Convention (Art. 7) — **no specific charges in any Case**
6. **Crimes against internationally protected persons** — 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (Art. 8) — **no specific charges in any Case**

### 2.2 Genocide (Digest ch. 2.3)

**Principal authorities:** Case 002/02 Judgment (E465, 16 November 2018) and Case 002/02 Appeal Judgment (F76, 23 December 2022).

Convictions:
- **Nuon Chea**: genocide against the Cham and the Vietnamese. *Case 002/02, Judgment.*
- **Khieu Samphan**: genocide against the Vietnamese. *Case 002/02, Judgment.*

Elements catalogued in the Digest:
- Genocidal intent: "to destroy"; "in whole or in part"; "a national, ethnical, racial or religious group"; "as such" (Digest 2.3.2.1)
- Broader definition of genocide (Digest 2.3.2.2)
- Underlying acts: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm; deliberately inflicting conditions of life; imposing measures intended to prevent births; forcibly transferring children (Digest 2.3.2.3)

**Protected groups treated at the ECCC:** Cham (religious and ethnic group); Vietnamese (national/ethnic group). Note: charges against the Buddhists in Case 002/02 were charged as religious persecution (crime against humanity) not as genocide.

### 2.3 Crimes against humanity (Digest ch. 2.4)

**Principal authorities:** Case 001 Judgment (E188), Case 001 Appeal Judgment (F28), Case 002/01 Judgment (E313), Case 002/01 Appeal Judgment (F36), Case 002/02 Judgment (E465), Case 002/02 Appeal Judgment (F76).

Chapeau elements catalogued (Digest 2.4.2): widespread or systematic attack; directed against a civilian population; on national/political/ethnical/racial/religious grounds; nexus between the acts and the attack; requisite knowledge; nexus to an armed conflict.

Underlying crimes catalogued (Digest 2.4.3): murder; extermination; enslavement; deportation; imprisonment; torture; rape; persecution; other inhumane acts (forced transfer and deportation; enforced disappearances; attacks against human dignity; **forced marriage and forced pregnancy** — historically significant findings in Case 002/02).

### 2.4 Grave breaches of Geneva Conventions of 1949 (Digest ch. 2.5)

Limited to the international armed conflict with Vietnam. Chapeau elements: existence of armed conflict; international character; nexus; protected persons; knowledge requirement (Digest 2.5.2). Underlying breaches: wilful killing; torture/inhumane treatment; wilfully causing great suffering; depriving fair trial rights; unlawful deportation; unlawful confinement (Digest 2.5.3).

---

## 3. Individual criminal responsibility (Digest ch. 3)

### 3.1 Modes of liability under the ECCC Law (Article 29 new)

Commission, planning, instigating, ordering, aiding and abetting; superior responsibility.

### 3.2 Superior responsibility (Digest 3.3)

Elements (Digest 3.3.2): (i) superior-subordinate relationship with effective command and control or authority and control; (ii) the superior knew or had reason to know; (iii) failure to take measures to prevent or punish.

Applied notably in Case 001 (Duch as Chairman of S-21) and Case 002/01 and 002/02 (against Nuon Chea and Khieu Samphan).

### 3.3 Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE) (Digest 3.4)

**JCE is judicially recognised as a form of commission** at the ECCC; it is not in Article 29 new of the ECCC Law (Digest 3.4.1).

**Key authorities:** Case 002/01 Judgment (E313) and Case 002/01 Appeal Judgment (F36), which set out the ECCC's articulation of JCE I and JCE II. The Pre-Trial Chamber's 2010 decision on JCE in Case 002 is the foundational ruling. **JCE III** has been contested at the ECCC and is treated with caution; its applicability is narrower than at the ICTY.

Applicability is **limited to international crimes** (Digest 3.4.1.1).

Elements (Digest 3.4.2):
- **Objective elements**: plurality of persons; the common purpose; participation in the common purpose
- **Subjective elements**: intent (varies for JCE I vs II vs III)

### 3.4 Defences (Digest 3.5)

- Superior orders (Digest 3.5.1) — never a defence under the ECCC framework; no defence to have acted pursuant to an order of the government of Democratic Kampuchea or of a superior
- Duress (Digest 3.5.2)

---

## 4. Fair trial rights (Digest ch. 4)

Sources of fair trial rights (Digest 4.1): UN-RGC Agreement Art. 13; ECCC Law Art. 33 new; ICCPR; Internal Rules.

Rights catalogued:
- Equality of arms (4.2): time for examination of witnesses; participation in investigation; legal aid allocation
- Equal treatment (4.3)
- Presumption of innocence (4.4); in dubio pro reo (4.5)
- Right to be informed of the charges (4.6) — specificity requirements of Introductory Submissions and Closing Orders; translation rights
- Right to counsel (4.7); right to remain silent (4.8)
- Right to expeditious proceedings (4.9); impact of undue delay from non-ECCC cases (4.10)
- Right to appeal (4.11)
- Fitness to stand trial (4.12) — notably applied in the Ieng Thirith case (severance from Case 002/01 in 2012)
- Authority to order a stay of proceedings when a fair trial is not possible (4.14)

---

## 5. Procedure (Digest ch. 5)

The procedural architecture of the ECCC. For citation discipline, two specific sections matter:

- **Internal Rules — legal basis** (Digest 5.1.2): the contested question of whether the Internal Rules were adopted ultra vires (see academic Tier 2 sources, in particular Starygin 2011, for the critique).
- **Relationship with national legal procedure** (Digest 5.1.3): when Cambodian law applies vs. when international standards fill gaps under UN-RGC Agreement Article 12(1).

Phase-by-phase procedure: Prosecution (5.3) → Investigation (5.4) → Pre-trial appeals (5.5) → Trial (5.6) → Appeal (5.7).

**Severance** (Digest 5.6.5) is particularly important for Case 002 → 002/01 / 002/02. The principal authorities are:
- *Decision on Severance of Case 002* (Case 002/01), E124/7.3, 22 September 2011
- *Decision on Severance of Case 002 following Supreme Court Chamber Decision of 8 February 2013* (Case 002/01), E163/5/1/13, 8 February 2013 (SCC annulment) and follow-up
- *Decision on Khieu Samphan's Immediate Appeal against the Trial Chamber's Decision on Additional Severance of Case 002 and Scope of Case 002/02*, E301/9/1/1/3, 29 July 2014

---

## 6. Sentencing (Digest ch. 6)

Sources, purposes, principles, factors (mitigating and aggravating). The Duch case is particularly important for sentencing methodology: the **Case 001 Appeal Judgment (F28)** overturned the Trial Chamber's 35-year sentence in favour of life imprisonment.

Aggravating factors catalogued (Digest 6.3.5) including gravity, position of authority, large number of victims, particular vulnerability of victims.

---

## 7. Civil Party action (Digest ch. 7)

The chapter most directly relevant to ECCC civil-party practitioners. Three sections:

### 7.1 Civil Party admissibility

**Principal authorities:**
- Case 001 Judgment (E188) and Appeal Judgment (F28) — early civil party admissibility regime
- Case 002 closing-order decisions (D427/1/30, D427/2/15, D427/3/15, D427/4/15)
- Case 002/01 Judgment (E313) and Appeal Judgment (F36)
- Case 002/02 Judgment (E465) and Appeal Judgment (F76)

Elements (Digest 7.1):
- **Injury** (Digest 7.1.1): personal nature; physical, material, and psychological injuries
- **Causal link** between the injury and crimes under investigation (Digest 7.1.2)
- **Burden of proof** (Digest 7.1.3)
- **Discretionary presumptions for indirect victims** (Digest 7.1.4) — important for surviving relatives of deceased direct victims
- **Proof of identity** (Digest 7.1.5)

**Internal Rules:** civil-party applications and admissibility are governed by Internal Rules 23, 23 bis, 23 ter, 23 quater. **The revision in force at the date of application controls** — see `citation-format.md` § "Internal Rules — revision discipline".

### 7.2 Role of Civil Parties in the proceedings

Catalogued rights (Digest 7.2):
- Right to make submissions (7.2.1)
- Right to personal appearance (7.2.2)
- Right to make opening and closing statements (7.2.3)
- Scope of Civil Party testimony (7.2.4)
- Probative value of Civil Party testimony (7.2.5)

### 7.3 Reparations

**Principal authorities:**
- Case 001 Judgment (E188) — initial reparations regime under early Internal Rules
- Case 002/01 Judgment (E313) — endorsement of 11 reparations projects
- Case 002/02 Judgment (E465) — endorsement of 13 reparations projects

**The framework** (Digest 7.3.1):
- **Collective and moral reparations only** (Digest 7.3.1.1) — no individual financial reparations. This is a foundational characteristic of ECCC reparations and distinguishes the ECCC regime from the ICC.
- Judicial and non-judicial reparation avenues (Digest 7.3.1.2)
- Formulation and content of the reparation claim (Digest 7.3.1.3)
- Enforcement of reparations (Digest 7.3.1.4)

**Principles** (Digest 7.3.2):
- Scope of the reparations framework (Digest 7.3.2.1) — the ECCC cannot bind or order States or other third parties
- The reparation claim (Digest 7.3.2.3): feasibility; degree of detail and specificity; **nexus between the harm resulting from the crime and the proposed reparation** (Digest 7.3.2.3.3) — central to admissibility of any proposed project; the extent of benefits
- Implementation of reparation measures (Digest 7.3.2.4)

**Examples of endorsed reparations projects (Case 002/01, E313):** National Remembrance Day; Phnom Penh memorial honouring victims of forced evacuations; testimonial therapy; self-help groups; permanent exhibition; mobile exhibition and education; inclusion of a chapter on forced population movement and Tuol Po Chrey in the Cambodian school curriculum; peace learning centre; booklet on adjudicated facts and civil party participation; two editions of the verdict; inclusion of Civil Party names on the ECCC website.

---

## 8. Administration of justice (Digest ch. 8)

Including:
- **Recusal and disqualification** of judges (Digest 8.2)
- **Alleged interference with the administration of justice** under Internal Rule 35 (Digest 8.3) — the ECCC's contempt-equivalent procedure
- **Lawyers' ethical duties** and professional responsibilities (Digest 8.4)

---

## How to use this map

1. **Identify the user's substantive question** and map it to a chapter and section of the Digest.
2. **Read the relevant section of the Digest** to confirm the principal authorities and the state of ECCC law on the point.
3. **Verify the cited authority** through the workflow in `verification-workflow.md` — fetch the actual decision and confirm the specific paragraph supports the proposition.
4. **Cite using the canonical short forms** in `citation-format.md` § "Frequently cited authorities".

The Digest is the map; this file is a map of the Digest; the verified Court text is the territory.