Abstract
This article illustrates how the ECCC is struggling to combine successfully two distinct institutional responses to crimes, by being both a criminal tribunal, with its formal rules of procedure and focus on retributive justice, and a quasi-truth and reconciliation commission, with its more flexible approach to participatory rights for victims and focus on reconciliation. The article highlights the advantages and challenges of adopting a ‘two for the price of one’ model within the Cambodian context and uses the experiences of the ECCC to underscore important lessons for future ad hoc and hybrid courts.
Key words
Footnotes
* MA, JD, Ph.D. candidate in international criminal law and procedure at Utrecht University's Netherlands Institute of Human Rights, and co-director of the Netherlands office of the Public International Law & Policy Group. The author sincerely thanks Marieke de Hoon and Theo Leyh for their insightful comments on earlier drafts. Any mistakes or misconceptions are the author's own.