Killing of Mr. Chut Wutty – ADHOC Report

Phnom Penh, 4 May 2012

The Cambodian Human Rights and Development Association (ADHOC) strongly condemns the killing of Mr. Chut Wutty, President of Cambodia’s Natural Resources Conservation Group, on 26^th April 2012. ADHOC also expresses deep concern about the lack of thorough investigation by the authorities into the case, demonstrating an apparent lack of impetus towards seeking justice. The Chief Prosecutor has refused to meet with ADHOC investigators and to make further inquiries into this case, and the police report is seen as highly contentious by NGOs and the family of the victim.

ADHOC sent investigators to Koh Kong on the day of the killing, in order to collect as much information and evidence as possible. In partnership with other Cambodian NGOs, ADHOC visited the crime scene, in Russey Chrum commune, Thmor Bang district, Koh Kong province. The following account is based on what ADHOC investigators have observed so far:

Chut Wutty was a well-known environmental activist, famous for his fight against the destruction of the Central Cardamom Protected Forest in the southwest. Before he was shot dead, he was investigating into illegal logging in Koh Kong province. According to reliable sources, a logging company established in this area, collected and stocked illegal wood in conjunction with its official and public activities. Unfortunately but not surprisingly, the company has not allowed ADHOC or any other NGO to approach the company office on site, nor to meet with representatives.

On 26^th April, at around noon, the environmental activist was accompanied by two journalists, Ms. Bopha and Ms. Polkhii from the reputable English language newspaper, the Cambodia Daily, to investigate the illegal logging. In accordance with villagers’ testimonies, the altercation started as the two journalists were coming back from the forest where they were taking pictures while Mr. Wutty was waiting for them by the car. The company security guard blocked the way preventing the activist and the journalists from leaving the site. Witnesses explained that an argument started between the president of Cambodia’s Natural Resources Conservation Group and the security guard, the latter demanding the memory card of the camera be handed over and Chut Wutty refusing to cooperate. The memory card contained pictures of the company’s illegal logging activities, and would have been essential proof to urge authorities to take measures for stopping forest destruction.

After what seemed like a long time arguing, Mr. Wutty still refused to relinquish the memory card. The military police arrived on scene, likely summoned by the security guard. ADHOC is still not sure, based on differing testimonies, how many military policemen were present, but it seems that there were three, including two in military uniform. Quickly after their arrival, a heated argument started between Chut Wutty and the military police officers, which almost became physically violent. Meanwhile, another military policeman took the cameras from the two journalists who were sitting in the car. After the activist returned to the driver seat, one gun shot was fired. It is now certain that the military police opened fire first. The villagers present at this moment seemed reluctant to describe what happened at that time, claiming that they had not seen anything because they were busy working. One man finally came forward and described the scene, by showing where the military police officer stood and pointed his weapon at Chut Wutty sitting in the car. ADHOC cannot be sure so far who shot the activist, but it is certain that someone who was standing outside the car opened fire on Mr. Wutty. The bullet apparently passed through the right door, entered his knee of and traveled upward into his stomach. Villagers also told investigators that one shot was aimed at the front windscreen of the car. At this point we can say that Chut Wutty did not die instantly, but we could not establish the exact time of his death. The Cambodia Daily journalists present said that they heard two shots but that they did not see the shooter.

After the shot, the two journalists escaped quickly from the car and hid in the bushes before finding refuge with the villagers. At this time Chut Wutty was dying in the car. When they believed it was safe to emerge from the forest, the two journalists said that they returned to the car and tried to administer first aid to Wutty.

Concerning In Rattana, the military police officer; the circumstances of his death are still unclear. The police report alleged at first that Chut Wutty killed him. They then argued that bullets from the soldier’s own AK-47 ricocheted off the car, hitting him and causing his death. When these two versions were contested as unlikely, they concluded that the soldier, feeling guilty after having killed the activist, turned the gun on himself and shot himself in the stomach and in the chest. As for journalists, they attest that they heard two gunshots only; however NGO investigators observed that Mr. Rattana and Mr. Wutty have two wounds each, which indicates that more than two gunshots must have been fired. However, considering the size of an AK-47 rifle, it seems hardly possible that anyone could shoot themselves twice, in the stomach and then the chest with such a weapon.

After the shootings, the military police held the two journalists for some hours for questioning before releasing them. The two women have not had the memory cards of their cameras, containing evidence of illegal logging, returned to them.

A firearm was found in Chut Wutty’s pocket after his death. It appears that the gun was loaded but none of the bullets had been fired. Furthermore, the gun was packed when it was found, meaning that it is unlikely that the activist had used the gun before being shot, contrary to what the military police originally claimed.

ADHOC believes that the local police cannot be trusted to conduct a full and just investigation into this case, seeing as the local military police are implicated. ADHOC also notes that both the police report and journalists’ testimonies lack details and possibly contain false information. ADHOC and other Human rights groups called upon the government to ensure a full investigation is carried out by national authorities. It is essential to explain the unfolding of events that led to the deaths of two men. In a democracy, the crime of murder cannot go unpunished with the complicity of local authorities. Another matter is the apparent agreement between the authorities and the logging company that the military police would protect their illegal logging activities. The circumstances are suspicious, despite the denial by the military police that they had any sort of link with the firm.

After a meeting held on Monday 30th April, human rights groups agreed that a third person must have been involved in the conflict, and may have killed Mr. Rattana. It is essential to identify this third person in order to understand exactly what happened on the day of the shooting. Further investigations are needed so as to clarify events and to see justice being done.

On Monday 30^th April, General Sao Sokha, National Military Commander, announced that a committee will be formed to look into the murder, after Deputy Minister of the Council of Ministers, HE Prak Sokhon requested this. The General specified that the committee would be composed of “officials from the Ministry of Interior, Council of Ministers, the Ministry of National Assembly Senate Relations & Inspection, other government departments and the national military police”[1]. The Committee members that have been selected are Mok Chito, Head of the Central Judicial Department at the Ministry of Interior, Sin Sophany, Deputy National Military Police Chief, Kim Santepheap, Deputy General of the Ministry of Justice’s technical department, Tith Sothea, Deputy Director of the Council of Ministers Press and Quick Reaction Unit, and Som Seban, Deputy Department Head at the Ministry of National Assembly-Senate Relations and Inspections.

ADHOC recognize that the formation of a committee is a positive step and that further investigations will be conducted as a result, but is also skeptical about the composition of the committee. Seeing as the Military Police were involved in the case, they should be exempt from the committee in order to safeguard its independence. The other problem concerning the committee’s composition is that, except for Mok Chito, the members lack any judicial or investigative experience. We may speculate that the true aim of the creation of such a committee, whose members are inexperienced and possibly biased, is to give the mere impression that the government is seriously investigating the issue, while simultaneously circumventing formal legal justice mechanisms.

On Tuesday, 1st May 2012, it was reported to ADHOC that two persons were arrested by the Military Police: Ran Bunnarath, a 26 year-old man, working as a security guard for the logging company, and So Sopheap, a military policeman and friend of In Rattana. The two men are suspected of involvement in Chut Wutty’s death and will be prosecuted. The Military Police allegedly found that both men were present at the scene of the altercation. Meanwhile investigations, both by NGOs and state actors, continue into this tragic event. In the end, one may only hope that justice will be done, both for the family of Chut Wutty and for all activists working on issues pertaining to human rights in Cambodia. Unfortunately, based on precedent, this outcome is unlikely. It is more probable that the crime will be pinned on low ranking officers or security guards, and the high ranking officials/heads of company, who are truly to blame, will go unpunished.