On 8 November 2016, Rainsy was found guilty of defamation after posting on Facebook that Prime Minister Hun Sen’s Facebook likes were bought from “click farms” in India and the Philippines.63 Case study 2: Kem Ley Political commentator and activist Kem Ley was assassinated on 10 July 2016 at a petrol station in Phnom Penh. Since then, several people have been charged and convicted for accusing the Cambodian government of being responsible for his death. In November 2016, opposition Senator Thak Lany was convicted of defamation and incitement in absentia and sentenced to 18 months in prison for alleging that Prime Minister Hun Sen was behind the assassination of Kem Ley. The offending remarks were made in a video – later uploaded to Facebook – of a speech to party supporters in Ratanakkiri province.64 In February 2017, political commentator Kim Sok was arrested under charges of defamation and incitement after having made comments in an interview with Radio Free Asia, in which he accused the government of being involved in the death of Kem Ley.65 In March 2017, Sam Rainsy was found guilty of defamation and incitement for stating in a Facebook post that the death of Kem Ley was “state-backed terrorism.”66 He was given a 20-month sentence and a fine of 10 million riels (USD 2,400). The Appeal Court upheld the sentence on 11 August 2017.67 Defamation is accompanied by a plethora of other offences in the Criminal Code, which severely limit the right to freedom of expression, and almost 63 Titthara, M. (2016, 9 November). Rainsy Convicted of Defamation. Khmer Times. www.khmertimeskh.com/news/31841/ rainsy-convicted-of-defamation 64 Sarom, K. (2017, 11 August). Court hears Thak Lany appeal defamation conviction. The Phnom Penh Post. www.phnompenhpost.com/national/ court-hears-thak-lany-appeal-defamation-conviction 65 Odom, S. (2017, 17 February). Commentator Kim Sok Jailed Over Defamation, Incitement Charges. The Cambodia Daily. www.cambodiadaily.com/news/commentator-kim-sok-jaileddefamation-incitement-charges-125375 66 Chheng, N. (2017, 30 March). Sam Rainsy handed jail time in defamation case against PM. The Phnom Penh Post. www.phnompenhpost.com/national/ sam-rainsy-handed-jail-time-defamation-case-against-pm 67 Odom, S. (2017, 11 August). Appeal Court Upholds 20-Month Sentence for Sam Rainsy. The Cambodia Daily. www.cambodiadaily.com/news/ appeal-court-upholds-20-month-sentence-sam-rainsy-133552 completely undermine the government’s removal of the custodial sentencing for defamation. In practice, defamation is often coupled with complementary charges, which do carry custodial sentences. Article 307 (Public Insult) makes it a crime subject to the same penalties as the offence of defamation to use any “[o]utrageous expression, term of contempt or any invective that does not involve any imputation of fact.” Like under Article 305, the commission of the offence requires that the insult be made by means of “any words whatsoever uttered in a public place or in a public meeting.” This implies that individuals may be prosecuted for private conversations. Article 502 (Insult of a Public Official) criminalises individuals whose words, gestures, written documents, pictures or objects are held to undermine the dignity of a public official or “holder of public elected office”, while Article 523 criminalises any criticism of court decisions which is said to be aimed at “disturbing public order” or “endangering an institution” of Cambodia.68 Violators of Article 502 are subject to punishments of one to six days imprisonment and a fine from 1,000 riels (USD 0.2) to 100,000 riels (USD 24). Violators of Article 523 are subject to punishment of one to six months imprisonment and a fine from 100,000 riels (USD 24) to one million riels (USD 240). Article 311 penalises “malicious denunciation”, which is defined as: The act of denouncing a fact that is known to be incorrect and it is so knowingly to result in criminal or disciplinary sanctions constitutes a slanderous denunciation, when it is addressed to: (1) a competent authorities, such as a judge, a judicial police officer, or an employer; (2) or a person with power to refer the matter to the competent authorities. This provision limits freedom of expression by discouraging whistleblowers and those who may be critical of government or judicial actions, such as human rights defenders. The punishment for this offence includes imprisonment of between one month and one year and a fine of between 100,000 riels (USD 24) to two million riels (USD 480). Article 42 of the Criminal Code is also noteworthy. It indicates that where expressly provided by law and/or statutory instruments, legal entities may be held criminally liable for offences committed on their behalf by 68 CCHR. (2012). An overview of Cambodian laws relating to freedom of expression and a summary of recent case examples to show how laws are used and abused to stifle dissent. cchrcambodia.org/ admin/media/analysis/analysis/english/2012_10_30_CCHR%20 Briefing%20Note%20_%20Cambodian%20laws%20relating%20 to%20freedom%20of%20expression%20and%20recent%20 case%20examples%20-%20ENG.pdf 46 / Unshackling Expression