ECCC Appeals: Appraising the Supreme Court Chamber’s Interventions

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.