INTRODUCTION

Countless challenges have arisen in the efforts to create a court with jurisdiction to try “senior Khmer Rouge leaders and those who were most responsible” for the crimes committed during their regime within Cambodia. These efforts were met with scepticism by those who considered judicial intervention either impossible or meaningless in a country such as Cambodia. Despite all this, the long-awaited time for justice in Cambodia has finally arrived. It is not, however, an easy task. As it is a work in progress, results cannot yet be finally assessed.

The Khmer Rouge Tribunal, officially named the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), faces many challenges. However, the issuing of its first judgment in July 2010 and the start of a second trial in 2011 are unquestionably important and concrete steps in “moving forward through justice” and give hope for reconciliation. Before focusing on the ECCC, it is necessary to put the Cambodian experience into a broader context. The development of International Criminal Law and transitional justice is relatively new. The path from impunity to accountability for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes has seen the emergence of international norms and now offers an increasingly effective response to post-conflict situations.

FROM IMPUNITY TO ACCOUNTABILITY OR THE EMERGENCE OF NORMS TO PROVIDE JUSTICE TO VICTIMS OF THE MOST SERIOUS CRIMES AND ITS DEVELOPMENT

The 20th century had witnessed systematic violations of fundamental rights in different regions of the world. The responses to those crimes were different: retaliation, amnesty, regular trials, Truth and Reconciliation Commissions, international tribunals or simply, oblivion. Since awareness grew for the need to prosecute and to sentence perpetrators for the most serious atrocities that touched the universal conscience, the path to an effective international criminal justice has been long. It is generally recognised that it is the duty of the international community to ensure that victims of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes receive justice. But it would be wrong to believe that the implementation of this principle has resulted in a smooth process, with regular advances. The development of international criminal justice comprises both backward and forward steps while the balance between ethical imperatives and political constraints is always a complex and perilous exercise.