Opinion; Subjects: CAMBODIA, ARBITRARY DETENTION; [WGAD: UNO-Arbeitsgruppe über willkürliche Inhaftierung, willkürliche Haft; Groupe de travail sur la détention arbitraire; Gruppo di lavoro sulla detenzione arbitraria]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.26-01212 (E) 040226 020426
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its 104th session, 10–14 November 2025
Opinion No. 67/2025 concerning Chandaravuth Ly, Kunthea Long,
Keoraksmey Phuon, Ratha Thun and Leanghy Yim (Mother Nature
Five) (Cambodia)*
1.
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of
the Commission on Human Rights. In its resolution 1997/50, the Commission extended and
clarified the mandate of the Working Group. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251
and Human Rights Council decision 1/102, the Council assumed the mandate of the
Commission. The Council most recently extended the mandate of the Working Group for a
three-year period in its resolution 60/8.
2.
In accordance with its methods of work,1 on 24 March 2025 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Cambodia a communication concerning Chandaravuth Ly,
Kunthea Long, Keoraksmey Phuon, Ratha Thun and Leanghy Yim. The Government
submitted a late response on 26 May 2025. The State is a party to the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights.
3.
The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following cases:
(a)
When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the
deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or her
sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him or her) (category I);
(b)
When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or
freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and, insofar as States Parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25,
26 and 27 of the Covenant (category II);
(c)
When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating to
the right to a fair trial, established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the
relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity as to
give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (category III);
(d)
When asylum-seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged
administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or remedy
(category IV);
* Mumba Malila did not participate in the discussion of the case.
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/67
General Assembly
Distr.: General
2 April 2026
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/67
2
GE.26-01212
(e)
When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law on
the grounds of discrimination, based on birth, national, ethnic or social origin, language,
religion, economic condition, political or other opinion, gender, sexual orientation, disability
or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human beings
(category V).
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
(i)
Arrest, detention, trial and sentencing of Mother Nature Five
4.
Chandaravuth Ly, Kunthea Long, Keoraksmey Phuon, Ratha Thun and Leanghy Yim
(“the Mother Nature Five”) are citizens of Cambodia and members of Mother Nature
Cambodia, a local environmental activist group that raises awareness about environmental
destruction.
5.
Mr. Ly was aged 24 at the time of detention. He is a law student in Phnom Penh and
has played a pivotal role in Mother Nature Cambodia’s campaigns. He joined the movement
in 2020 following the arrest of three other members, namely Ms. Long, Ms. Phuon and
Mr. Thun.
6.
The source reports that Mr. Ly featured in a video about a building construction in
Sihanoukville. His work to counter environmental violations has reportedly made him a
target of repression and he has experienced harassment, including surveillance and
intimidation by the authorities. He was reportedly first arrested and charged on 16 June 2021
while taking water samples from the Tonle Sap River, following reports that sewage was
being pumped into the river.
7.
He spent five months in pretrial detention before being released on bail pending trial.
In November 2023, he was part of a Mother Nature Cambodia delegation to Europe and
highlighted the environmental and human rights abuses of Cambodia while in Geneva, Paris
and Stockholm.
8.
Ms. Long was aged 26 at the time of detention. She joined Mother Nature Cambodia
in 2019. She has raised numerous environmental concerns, including the impact of
sand-mining along the Mekong River and the exploitation of Boeung Tamok Lake in Phnom
Penh.
9.
On 3 September 2020, she was arrested as she prepared to walk to the central Phnom
Penh estate of then Prime Minister Hun Sen as a protest. On 5 May 2021, Phnom Penh Court
of First Instance convicted her of “incitement” and sentenced her to 18 months in prison,
imposing a fine of 4 million riel (approximately $1,000).
10.
While imprisoned in Correctional Centre 2, she was also charged with “plotting”. She
had to report to the police monthly between first being released from detention in November
2021 and a second charge being brought.
11.
Ms. Phuon was aged 23 at the time of detention. She joined Mother Nature Cambodia
in 2020 and is reportedly well known for raising awareness of illegal deforestation and
defending the rights of local communities. She has collaborated with the Cambodian Youth
Network with the aim of establishing better environmental policies in Cambodia. She was
arrested in September 2020 while filming Ms. Long’s aforementioned one-woman march to
the Phnom Penh estate of then Prime Minister Hun Sen and sentenced on the same charges
as Ms. Long. Additionally, she was charged for “plotting” while detained in Correctional
Centre 2. Like Ms. Long, Ms. Phuon continued her activism following her first conviction.
12.
Mr. Thun was aged 32 at the time of detention. He joined Mother Nature Cambodia
in 2015. He soon became one of the key figures of the movement and conducted numerous
investigations into and campaigns on sand-mining scams, the illegal trafficking of wildlife
and illegal logging. Many of his videos documenting those activities went viral on social
media, which was reportedly met with hostility by the authorities.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/67
GE.26-01212
3
13.
The source reports that, in June 2017, he was subjected to harassment by the local
police while participating in protests against sand-dredging in Kandal Province, but was
protected by villagers who helped him avoid arrest. In 2020, he was arrested alongside
Ms. Long and Ms. Phuon and sentenced to 20 months in prison on the same charges. He was
detained in Correctional Centre 1 and he was also charged with “plotting” during that
detention. He also continued his activism upon release following his first conviction, but
remained under strict judicial supervision.
14.
Ms. Long, Ms. Phuon and Mr. Thun were prevented by the court from travelling to
Stockholm in November 2023 to receive the Right Livelihood Award.
15.
Mr. Yim was aged 35 at the time of detention. He joined Mother Nature Cambodia
after completing his degree in Phnom Penh. Much of his work focused on investigating and
exposing illegal environmental practices and unregulated developments that harm the
country’s ecosystems and local communities. He was first arrested on 16 June 2021. He has
reportedly faced significant reprisals throughout his activism, including unlawful
surveillance, threats and intimidation.
16.
The source submits that the arrests, charges, convictions and sentencing of the five
individuals stemmed from peaceful environmental activism between 2012 and 2021.
Ms. Long, Ms. Phuon and Mr. Thun were previously convicted of incitement, in May 2021,
for organizing a one-woman march to protest against the filling-in of a Phnom Penh lake.
Their convictions were upheld by Phnom Penh Appeal Court and the Supreme Court of
Cambodia. Although permitted to leave prison during that time, they were placed under
restrictive probation conditions.
(ii)
Arrest, detention, trial and sentencing of the Mother Nature Five
17.
The source submits that Mother Nature Cambodia is a pre-eminent youth-led
environmental rights movement founded in 2013. The movement has been active in the
protection of the ecosystems of Cambodia and giving a voice to communities affected by
environmentally damaging practices. Thanks to its non-violent and innovative strategies,
Mother Nature Cambodia has reportedly become one of the country’s leading environmental
movements.
18.
On 4 September 2020, Ms. Long, Ms. Phuon and Mr. Thun were arrested and charged
under the Criminal Code for “incitement” for organizing and filming a peaceful march to the
estate of then Prime Minister Hun Sen to express concerns regarding the privatization of the
largest remaining natural lake in Phnom Penh.
19.
On 7 September, the Ministry of Interior released a statement requesting the relevant
authorities to take legal action against members of Mother Nature Cambodia, accusing the
movement of “causing social chaos” and labelling them as illegal for not being registered
under the Law on Associations and Non-Governmental Organizations. In 2022, the Human
Rights Committee expressed concerns surrounding the law, as it imposed onerous reporting
requirements on organizations, leading to the denial of registration and facilitating the
surveillance of activists.2
20.
On 6 May 2021, Ms. Long, Ms. Phuon and Mr. Thun were convicted after eight
months in pretrial detention. Ms. Long and Ms. Phuon were sentenced to 18 months in prison,
while Mr. Thun was sentenced to 20 months. In addition, each received a fine of 4 million
riel (approximately $1,000). Other individuals were sentenced in absentia under the same
case.
21.
On 16 June 2021, Mr. Ly was arrested while documenting sewage dumping in the
Tonle Sap River near Phnom Penh. At the exact same time, Mr. Yim was asked to report to
his local police station, where he was arrested. On 21 June 2021, Mr. Yim was formally
charged under articles 453 and 437bis of the Criminal Code for “plotting” and “insulting the
King”, while Mr. Ly was charged for “plotting”.
2 CCPR/C/KHM/CO/3, para. 36.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/67
4
GE.26-01212
22.
Ms. Long, Ms. Phuon and Mr. Thun, who were serving their sentences for earlier
charges at the time, were indicted in the same case. The source submits that these charges
stem from the peaceful activities of Mother Nature Cambodia from 2012 to 2021 and that the
evidence used included a leaked internal Zoom meeting, in which the participants discussed
political cartooning.
23.
Mr. Ly and Mr. Yim were released after five months of pretrial detention. Upon
completion of their first sentence, Ms. Long, Ms. Phuon and Mr. Thun were released but kept
under strict judicial supervision, having to report to their local police station once a month.
24.
The source reports that, in the period leading to the trial, Mother Nature Cambodia
continued its legitimate human rights activities despite continued harassment by the
authorities. It also notes that the Human Rights Committee, in 2022, expressed grave
concerns about the detention of human rights defenders from Mother Nature Cambodia.3
25.
According to the source, the trial of the Mother Cambodia Five took place from
29 May 2024 to 2 July 2024. The source submits that the trial failed to meet international
human rights standards and the convictions were in breach of the five detainees’ rights to
freedom of expression, to peaceful assembly and to association.
26.
The source notes that, in the same case, five other members of Mother Nature
Cambodia were co-defendants tried in absentia.
27.
It is reported that the six trial hearings on 29 May, 5 June, 11 June, 17 June, 24 June
and 2 July 2024 were public. The Mother Nature Five attended all hearings except for the
one on 5 June 2024, which the detainees boycotted because no media was permitted in the
courtroom, and the reading of the verdict on 2 July 2024. During those two hearings, the
detainees remained outside the court building.
28.
Seven defence lawyers represented the detainees. Three were retained by
non-governmental organizations, while four were court-appointed lawyers selected by the
Cambodian Bar Association. The source notes that only the lawyers retained by
non-governmental organizations were consistently present for all hearings. The detainees
were not able to confer at length with their lawyers during proceedings. The defence was able
to call and examine witnesses. However, the detainees were not afforded equal opportunity
to present their cases.
29.
The source notes that, since all proceedings were conducted in Khmer and no
interpretation services were provided, the trial monitoring notes available to the source were
not from official court sources but based on simultaneous translation provided by an
independent interpreter.
30.
On 2 July 2024, Phnom Penh Court of First Instance announced a verdict convicting
the five defendants of “plotting” (art. 453 of the Criminal Code), while Mr. Yim was also
convicted of “insulting the King” (art. 437bis of the Criminal Code). Mr. Ly, Ms. Long,
Ms. Phuon and Mr. Thun were sentenced to six years’ imprisonment and Mr. Yim to eight
years’ imprisonment. Arrest warrants were issued by Phnom Penh Court of First Instance for
their arrest.
31.
Mr. Ly, Ms. Long, Ms. Phuong and Mr. Thun were arrested by the police and security
forces outside Phnom Penh Court of First Instance on 2 July 2024, following the
pronouncement of the verdict.
32.
Mr. Yim was arrested earlier in the morning of the same day outside a guesthouse in
which he was staying. The source notes that it is unclear whether the authorities responsible
for Mr. Yim’s arrest had received the arrest warrant in advance of the verdict. It is also unclear
who the arresting authority was in the case of Mr. Yim.
33.
The source submits that the justice system of Cambodia is recognized as lacking in
independence, transparency or respect for the rule of law. The source submits that the Special
3 Ibid.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/67
GE.26-01212
5
Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Cambodia has illustrated the presence of
“judicialized lawfare”, as the judiciary routinely uses the law to silence dissenting views.4
34.
The source submits that, after arrest on 2 July 2024, each detainee was sent to a
separate prison across Cambodia: Mr. Ly to Kandal provincial prison; Ms. Long – Preah
Vihear provincial prison; Ms. Phuon – another provincial prison; Mr. Thun – a correctional
centre; and Mr. Yim – Kampong Speu provincial prison. These prisons were sometimes
located hundreds of kilometres away from the detainees’ homes, making visits by their
families and friends, medical care and timely legal consultation extremely difficult, in clear
violation of international standards. The source notes that the decision to isolate the detainees
in this manner has no precedent in Cambodia.
35.
Moreover, the source submits that Cambodian prisons are severely overcrowded and
poorly maintained. In 2022, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in
Cambodia reported that prisons in Cambodia had an overcrowding rate of over 300 per cent.5
Detainees routinely report insufficient access to food, water, space, healthcare and/or
visitation opportunities.
36.
The source submits that the Cambodian prison population has doubled since 2015.
This makes the “situation in prisons … perilous to the point that the conditions may constitute
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under the Convention against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment”. 6 The source raised
concerns regarding the health of the five and the healthcare received by them.
37.
The source submits that a formal notice to appeal the verdict of Phnom Penh Court of
First Instance was submitted in July 2024. To date, no response has been received from the
court. In January 2025, a bail application on behalf of the detainees was submitted to the
Appeal Court, which was denied on 17 February 2025. The Mother Nature Five all remain
in detention since 2 July 2024.
(iii)
Analysis of violations
38.
The source submits that the Mother Nature Five’s cases fall under categories I, II, III
and V.
a.
Category I
39.
The source submits that the Mother Nature Five’s deprivation of liberty lacks legal
basis, as the detainees had been subjected to detention based on excessively broad
interpretations of vague domestic criminal laws.
40.
According to the source, the Mother Nature Five were convicted of “plotting” under
article 453 of the Criminal Code and Mr. Yim was also convicted of “insulting the King”
under article 437bis of the Criminal Code. Those articles fail to meet international human
rights law standards, as they lack the requisite degree of precision and legal certainty.
41.
Moreover, the source submits that these laws were interpreted excessively broadly
during the detainees’ trial, with a view to criminalizing the legitimate expression of their
rights under the Covenant. The charges were brought in relation to an internal Zoom meeting,
in which participants discussed a satirical comic and unspecified “acts” allegedly committed
throughout 2012 and 2021. None of the evidence presented during the trial demonstrated
credible criminal intent. Cross-examination of the defendants revolved around Mother Nature
Cambodia’s funding and foreign influence, with the prosecution submitting that the
movement was an illegal organization. This, according to the source, is in clear breach of
article 22 of the Covenant.
42.
The source notes that the Working Group has previously found other articles in the
Criminal Code, such as articles 494 and 495 (“incitement”), to be incompatible with article
4 A/HRC/57/82, para. 14.
5 A/HRC/51/66, para. 41.
6 Radio Free Asia, “UN committee raises concern over Cambodia’s crowded, unsanitary prisons”,
14 March 2022. Available at https://www.rfa.org/english/news/cambodia/human-rights-committee-
03142022191656.html.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/67
6
GE.26-01212
11 (2) of the Universal Declaration and article 15 (1) of the Covenant because crucial
elements such as “incitement” and “disturbing social security” are not defined. The source
reiterates that articles 453 (“plotting) and 437bis (“insulting the King”) likewise lack this
necessary definition.
43.
According to the source, the range of conduct already deemed criminal by the
Cambodian courts provides ample evidence of the lack of legal certainty around what kinds
of behaviour may fall under the country’s criminal laws: individuals have been convicted for
sharing Facebook posts and Tweets and printing T-shirts. An increase in charges brought for
“plotting” (punishable by a maximum 10-year term of imprisonment) compared to
“incitement” charges (punishable by a maximum 2-year term of imprisonment) may
constitute a marked step towards a more severe approach by the authorities, designed to
silence and deter individuals seeking to exercise key human rights, including freedom of
expression and assembly.
b.
Category II
44.
The source submits that the Mother Nature Five’s deprivation of liberty resulted from
their legitimate exercise of freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, association and
political participation.
45.
Article 19 of the Covenant distinguishes between freedom of opinion as an absolute
right and the right to express opinion as a limited one. Article 19 (3) of the Covenant confirms
that any restriction imposed on the right to freedom of expression must be provided by law,
designed to achieve a legitimate aim (namely the protection of national security, public order,
public health or morals) and imposed in accordance with the principle of necessity and
proportionality.
46.
The source submits that there is no justification for the Mother Nature Five’s detention
as a limitation of their freedom of expression, as it is not provided for in law, there is no such
legitimate aim for it and, consequently, it has not been applied in keeping with the principle
of necessity and proportionality.
47.
Moreover, the concept of lèse-majesté (art. 437bis of the Criminal Code) is a prima
facie violation of article 19 of the Covenant. The Human Rights Committee has noted that
the mere fact that forms of expression were considered to be insulting to a public figure was
not sufficient to justify the imposition of penalties.7
48.
According to the source, articles 453 and 437bis of the Criminal Code are
insufficiently precise to provide a legal basis for the limitation of the Mother Nature Five’s
freedom of expression.
49.
The source submits that Mother Nature Cambodia’s work has for years flagged
concerns about the situation of human rights in Cambodia and alleged corruption practices
and criticized the authorities. Given the matters on which the Mother Nature Five have
advocated, there can be no legitimate aim in restricting their right to freedom of expression.
50.
Article 19 (3) of the Covenant specifically states that limitations on the freedom of
expression must be necessary for respecting the rights or reputations of others, or for the
protection of national security, public order, public health or morals. However, Phnom Penh
Court of First Instance offered no publicly available formal reasoning for the conviction of
the Mother Nature Five – whether through a written judgment, court transcripts or otherwise.
51.
The source maintains that, even if a legitimate aim exists, any restriction on the
Mother Nature Five’s right to freedom of expression must remain necessary and
proportionate to achieving that aim. Their detention must be the least intrusive measure to
achieve the legitimate aim, with the burden of proof resting with the Government, which was
not the case.
52.
Similarly, there can be no justification for the Mother Nature Five’s detention as a
limitation of their other freedoms and rights.
7 General comment No. 34 (2011), para. 22.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/67
GE.26-01212
7
c.
Category III
53.
The source submits that the case features numerous instances of non-observance of
fair trial norms, including the unlawful arrest, incommunicado detention, the denial of access
to legal representation, the denial of the right to a competent, independent and impartial
tribunal and evidentiary challenges.
54.
The source submits that the Mother Nature Five’s communication with the outside
world is highly restricted, with the authorities in charge of Cambodian prisons exhibiting a
pattern of inconsistent and unclear reasoning for the decisions to deny the detainees contact
with family and legal counsel.
55.
Immediately following the verdict, the detainees were apprehended by the authorities
and each sent to different prisons across Cambodia, some of which are hundreds of kilometres
away from each other, their homes and their families. Separating the detainees has the effect
of ensuring that the detainees are kept away from each other and their families and lawyers,
making it more difficult for the latter to visit the detainees. It undermines access to quality
medical care and renders access to timely legal representation effectively impossible. The
source submits that this separation of the detainees is in clear violation of rules 58, 59 and 61
of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson
Mandela Rules).
56.
The source notes that the Cambodian courts do not automatically provide written
reasoning or transcripts in criminal cases, which runs contrary to the requirement to allow
the detainees to have effective access to an appeal. The source is not aware if there is a clear
public record of the court’s reasoning regarding the detainees’ convictions. The source recalls
that the Working Group has held that the failure to provide a written judgment adversely
affects the right to appeal, in violation of article 14 (5) of the Covenant.8
57.
According to the source, the verdict and subsequent order for the immediate arrest and
imprisonment of the detainees were delivered orally on 2 July 2024 by the presiding judge.
Proceedings took approximately 20 minutes and no further information was provided.
58.
The source maintains that the police interrogation of Mr. Ly prior to the trial was
conducted in violation of his rights. The source indicates that Mr. Ly’s answers were prepared
by police officers and that his thumbprint verifying the document was extracted by force at
around 1 a.m. Mr. Ly did not have the opportunity to read the answers provided. Furthermore,
Mr. Ly was refused access to a lawyer for 24 hours and his hair was pulled by the police
officers during the interview.
59.
According to the source, there were numerous instances of bias exhibited by Phnom
Penh Court of First Instance in this case during its six trial hearings, including the verdict
reading. Such instances included the selective appointment of defence lawyers perceived as
aligned with the court, differential treatment favouring the prosecution and repeated
restrictions on the defence’s ability to challenge evidence or present exculpatory material.
The presiding judge frequently curtailed prosecution questioning, discouraged the defence
counsel from asking questions that might strengthen the defendants’ case and openly stated
that adverse inferences would be drawn from the defendants’ silence. Court-appointed
lawyers exhibited concerning behaviour, including arriving late, interacting in a friendly
manner with the prosecution and being absent on occasion. The source notes that rules on
electronic devices were applied unequally and the judge’s visible impatience to conclude the
trial further undermined the fairness and integrity of the proceedings.
60.
The source further submits that no guidelines or policies regarding court CCTV
recordings are available to its knowledge. During the first hearing on 29 May 2024, observers
were also informed that CCTV, both inside and outside the court building, had audio and
video capabilities. It is the source’s understanding that this audio capability is a recent
addition with the recent relocation of the First Instance Court from central Phnom Penh to a
less accessible location in Chroy Changvar.
8 Opinion No. 49/2017, para. 48.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/67
8
GE.26-01212
d.
Category V
61.
The source argues that the detainees have been discriminated against for their political
views as part of the exercise of their fundamental political rights as human rights defenders.
62.
The source submits that there is a prima facie case that the detainees’ deprivation of
liberty is based on discriminatory grounds: namely that there is a pattern of persecution
against them, similar persons have also suffered persecution, the authorities demonstrate
discriminatory attitudes towards the detainees and their detention is based on discriminatory
grounds.
63.
The source further submits that the targeting of Mother Nature Cambodia has spanned
for almost ten years. Each of the detainees have previously been targeted on multiple
occasions. It provides a non-comprehensive list of examples of alleged court and judicial
harassment. Mr. Ly was arrested in June 2021 in connection with the charges in the current
case, after documenting waste run-off from Phnom Penh into the Tonle Sap River. Ms. Long,
Ms. Phuon and Mr. Thun were arrested in September 2020 and spent between 14 and
20 months in prison and received a fine of 4 million riel (around $1,000) for organizing a
peaceful one-woman march to protest against the filling-in of Boeung Tamok Lake in Phnom
Penh. They were convicted of incitement in May 2021. The detention was upheld by the
Appeal Court in November 2021 and by the Supreme Court in July 2022. Shortly after their
arrest in September 2020, the Ministry of Interior initiated legal action against members of
Mother Nature Cambodia, accusing the group of “causing social chaos” and stating that the
group was illegal because it had failed to register under the country’s repressive Law on
Associations and Non-Governmental Organizations. In October 2023, the three detainees
were barred from leaving Cambodia to accept an international award on behalf of Mother
Nature Cambodia. In June 2021, on the same day that Mr. Ly was arrested, Mr. Yim was
summoned for questioning by police in Kandal Province and arrested in relation the charges
in the current case upon his arrival at the police station. Furthermore, on the day of the verdict
and immediate transfer of the detainees to prison in July 2024, Mr. Yim’s location was
unknown. Given his unexpected and unexplained absence outside of the court building
alongside the other detainees on that day, the source submits that he was pre-emptively
detained by the authorities in advance of the verdict.
64.
The source submits that the treatment of the detainees’ forms part of a pattern of
routine persecution against activists from Mother Nature Cambodia, who have for years faced
harassment, threats and criminal charges for their peaceful environmental activism. The
source notes that five other people from Mother Nature Cambodia were also defendants in
this case.
65.
The source submits that the persecution of Mother Nature Cambodia itself forms a
trend of routine arrests against human rights defenders – especially independent media –
known for their critical reporting. The Working Group has previously found that Cambodia
has launched a campaign of persecution by routinely arresting or intimidating independent
journalists who report critically on the country’s leadership.9
66.
Therefore, the source submits that the authorities violated the Mother Nature Five’s
rights under articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration and articles 2 (1) and 26 of the
Covenant, rendering their detention arbitrary under category V.
(b)
Response from the Government
67.
On 24 March 2025, the Working Group transmitted allegations made by the source to
the Government through its regular communication procedure. The Working Group
requested the Government to provide, by 23 May 2025, detailed information about the current
situation of Mr. Ly, Ms. Long, Ms. Phuon, Mr. Thun and Mr. Yim and any comments on the
source’s allegations. The Working Group also requested the Government to clarify the factual
and legal grounds invoked by the authorities to justify their arrest and continued detention,
and to provide details regarding the conformity of the relevant legal provisions and
proceedings with international law, in particular with the human rights treaties that it has
9 Opinion No. 75/2021, para. 74.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/67
GE.26-01212
9
ratified. Moreover, the Working Group called upon the Government to ensure the physical
and mental integrity of the Mother Nature Five.
68.
The Government submitted its reply on 26 May 2025, after the deadline. The Working
Group cannot accept this response as if it were provided within the time limit. In accordance
with paragraph 16 of its methods of work, the Working Group will render its opinion based
on all the information it has obtained.
2.
Discussion
69.
In determining whether the detention of Mr. Ly, Ms. Long, Ms. Phuon, Mr. Thun and
Mr. Yim was arbitrary, the Working Group has regard to the principles established in its
jurisprudence to deal with evidentiary issues. If the source has established a prima facie case
for breach of international requirements constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof
should be understood to rest upon the Government if it wishes to refute the allegations.10
(a)
Category I
70.
The Working Group will first consider whether there have been violations under
category I, which concerns deprivation of liberty without any legal basis being invoked.
71.
The Working Group will elaborate on the propriety of detention under articles 453
and 437bis of the Criminal Code. One of the fundamental guarantees of due process is the
principle of legality, including: the principle of non-retroactivity; the prohibition against
analogy; the principle of certainty; and the prohibition against uncodified, that is, unwritten,
or judge-made criminal provisions. This means that an act can be punished only if, at the time
of its commission, it was the object of a valid, sufficiently precise, written criminal law to
which a sufficiently certain sanction was attached.11
72.
According to article 453 of the Criminal Code, “plotting” consists of a resolution
agreed upon by two or more persons to commit an attack where the resolution was put into
effect by one or more material actions and is punishable by imprisonment of between 5 and
10 years.12 Article 451 of the Criminal Code defines “attack” as “the commission of one or
more acts of violence liable to endanger the institutions of the Kingdom of Cambodia or
violate the integrity of the national territory” and is punishable by imprisonment of between
15 and 30 years.
73.
The principle of legality requires that laws be formulated with sufficient precision so
that individuals can access and understand the law and regulate their conduct accordingly.
Vague and ill-defined terms and concepts such as “acts of violence” and “liable to endanger
the institutions of the Kingdom of Cambodia or to violate the integrity of the national territory”
in articles 451 and 453 of the Criminal Code do not meet this standard. They are worded in
such vague and overbroad language as to invite abuse and misuse and are thus incompatible
with article 11 (2) of the Universal Declaration and article 15 (1) of the Covenant. Mother
Nature Five’s detention therefore cannot be considered to be prescribed by law. The Working
Group recalls that the Human Rights Committee has recommended that Cambodia should
review its current and pending legislation to avoid the use of vague terminology and overly
broad restrictions.13
74.
The Working Group also notes that the Government has shown no instance of “acts
of violence” committed by the five detainees for the purpose of article 451 of the Criminal
Code. The Government claims that the members of Mother Nature Cambodia “engaged in
activities involving the collection and distortion of information related to Cambodia, as well
as other actions designed to conceal malicious tactics intended to incite, inflame and mobilize
the public against the legitimate Royal Government”. The Government further alleges that
they continued to operate a Facebook page (Mother Nature Cambodia) “as a platform to
disseminate false information and accusations against the Royal Government, with the intent
10 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
11 Opinions No. 10/2018, para. 50; and No. 36/2019, para. 40.
12 See https://ngocedaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Criminal_Code_EN-KH_Jan_2014.pdf.
13 CCPR/C/KHM/CO/3, paras. 34 and 35.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/67
10
GE.26-01212
of undermining public trust and provoking hostility toward state institutions” after the official
dissolution of Mother Nature Cambodia by the Ministry of Interior in 2017. Even if true,
however, none of these impugned actions can be characterized as “violent”.
75.
With respect to the lèse-majesté case against Mr. Yim, article 437bis of the Criminal
Code, which was added by amendment of the Criminal Code in February 2018,14 provides
that: “Insulting the King shall be punishable by imprisonment from one to five years and a
fine from 2 million to 10 million riels”. The “insult” is defined in article 502 of the Criminal
Code as: “words, gestures, written documents, pictures or objects liable to undermine the
dignity of a person. An insult addressed to a public official or a holder of public elected office,
acting in the discharge or on the occasion of his or her office”. Such insult is punishable by
imprisonment of between one and six days and a fine of between 1,000 and 100,000 riels.
76.
The Working Group has considered lèse-majesté laws on numerous occasions in its
jurisprudence. For example, the Working Group has concluded in its case law concerning the
lèse-majesté provisions in section 112 of the Criminal Code of Thailand, which appears to
have inspired the adoption of article 437bis of the Criminal Code of Cambodia in 2018, that
detention pursuant to a law that was inconsistent with international human rights law lacked
a legal basis and was therefore arbitrary. 15 The Working Group notes that the Special
Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Cambodia and the Special Rapporteur on the
promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression have already
expressed their concern that lèse-majesté provisions were incompatible with the obligations
of Cambodia under international human rights law, as they criminalized the legitimate
exercise of freedom of speech.16
77.
Vague and ill-defined terms and concepts such as “insulting the King” or “liable to
undermine the dignity of a person” cannot satisfy the requirement of the lex certa component
of the principle of legality. The Working Group considers that article 437bis of the Criminal
Code is so vague as to be incompatible with article 11 (2) of the Universal Declaration and
article 15 (1) of the Covenant and cannot be invoked as a legal basis for detention.
78.
In the light of the above, the Working Group concludes that the Mother Nature Five’s
deprivation of liberty lacks a legal basis, in contravention of articles 3 and 9 of the Universal
Declaration and article 9 (1) of the Covenant, and is thus arbitrary under category I.
(b)
Category II
79.
The Working Group will now examine whether the Mother Nature Five’s deprivation
of liberty is arbitrary under category II, in relation to which the source submits that their
arrest, detention and conviction stem from the legitimate exercise of their fundamental rights
guaranteed under the Universal Declaration and the Covenant, and is in retaliation for their
public criticism of government policy.
80.
The source contends, and the Government does not contest, that the Mother Nature
Five have been detained for their various online and offline activities, including their posts
disseminating information related to environmental issues.
81.
The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Committee has recognized
freedom of expression as the foundation stone for every free and democratic society and the
right of peaceful assembly, together with other related rights, as constituting the very
foundation of a system of participatory governance based on democracy, human rights, the
rule of law and pluralism.17 The Committee has reiterated that freedom of expression includes
14 See https://www.ibanet.org/article/42653764-6802-4c42-bdb1-290e29c383b2.
15 See, for example, opinions No. 14/2017, para. 49 (consensual same-sex relations between adults);
No. 40/2018, para. 45; No. 43/2017, para. 34; No. 69/2018, para. 21 (conscientious objection to
military service); No. 64/2021, para. 57; No. 4/2019, para. 49; No. 49/2023, para. 63; No. 28/2024,
para. 71; No. 52/2024, para. 79; and No. 38/2025, para. 80 (Thai lèse majesté law);. In all cases, the
Working Group found that the detention lacked a legal basis and was therefore arbitrary under
category I.
16 See https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2018/02/un-experts-say-constitutional-changes-
cambodia-impinge-democracy.
17 General comments No. 34 (2011), para. 2; and No. 37 (2020), para. 1.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/67
GE.26-01212
11
the right of individuals to criticize or openly and publicly evaluate their Governments without
fear of interference or punishment.18 Even statements considered unacceptable, disrespectful
and in very bad taste by the authorities are entitled to protection.19
82.
Restrictions on the freedom of expression, of assembly and of association are
permissible only when they meet the conditions listed in articles 19 (3), 21 and 22 (2) of the
Covenant. Such limitations must not only have legal basis, but should be necessary and
proportionate to achieving legitimate aims in a democratic society.
83.
In the Working Group’s view, the principle of necessity and proportionality inheres
equally in all fundamental human rights. The Working Group has confirmed that the notion
of “arbitrary” stricto sensu includes both the requirement that a particular form of deprivation
of liberty is taken in accordance with the applicable law and procedure, and that it is
proportional to the aim sought, reasonable and necessary. 20 In its jurisprudence on the
application of the principle of proportionality the Working Group has applied the
four-pronged test of: (a) whether the objective of the measure is sufficiently important to
justify the limitation of a protected right; (b) whether the measure is rationally connected to
the objective; (c) whether a less intrusive measure could have been used without
unacceptably compromising the achievement of the objective; and (d) whether, balancing the
severity of the measure’s effects on the rights of the persons to whom it applies against the
importance of the objective, to the extent that the measure will contribute to its achievement,
the former outweighs the latter.21
84.
The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Committee has expressed deep
concern about the persistent violation of the freedom of expression within Cambodia,
including reports of the closure of multiple national and international media outlets; the
blockage of websites critical of the Government; the use of criminal and civil legal actions
against journalists and human rights defenders; and the widespread harassment and
intimidation of online activists. The Committee has further noted with concern that some
criminal offences contained in the Criminal Code and in the Law on Telecommunications,
including defamation, incitement, insult and lèse-majesté, are often used to restrict freedom
of expression disproportionately and excessively.22
85.
In the present case, the source has established a prima facie case for the deprivation
of liberty from the Mother Nature Five’s exercise of their rights and freedoms while the
Government has provided no legitimate aim or objective in a democratic society that may
justify interference with their rights and freedoms. The authorities have accused the five
members of Mother Nature Cambodia of engaging in a conspiracy to “organize interviews
and video meetings via Zoom to plan the public dissemination of false information
concerning the leadership of the Royal Government of Cambodia”. However, the
Government has provided no concrete evidence or examples beyond vague assertions of
spreading false information and it has failed to explain how they may constitute justifiable
grounds to restrict the freedom of expression, of assembly and of association.
86.
With respect to the lèse-majesté case against Mr. Yim, the Working Group has held
that the purported objective of the lèse-majesté law cannot be considered as a valid ground
for a necessary restriction of freedom of expression, given that all public figures can
legitimately be subject to criticism and political opposition.23 The Human Rights Committee
has stressed that all public figures, including those exercising the highest political authority
such as Heads of State and Government, are legitimately subject to criticism and political
opposition, and that laws should not provide for more severe penalties solely on the basis of
the identity of the person who may have been impugned – specifically expressing concern
18 Marques de Morais (CCPR/C/83/D/1128/2002), para. 6.7.
19 Opinions No. 10/2018, para. 63; No. 61/2018, para. 56; No. 14/2020, para. 65; and No. 43/2020,
para. 74.
20 A/HRC/22/44, para. 61.
21 Opinions No. 54/2015, para. 89; No. 41/2017, para. 86; No. 56/2017, para. 51; No. 58/2017, para. 48;
No. 76/2017, para. 68; No. 82/2018, para. 38; No. 87/2018, para. 64; No. 32/2020, para. 49;
No. 89/2020, para. 63; No. 92/2020, para. 63; No. 25/2021, para. 57; and 59/2024, para. 53.
22 CCPR/C/KHM/CO/3, para. 34.
23 Opinion No. 38/2025, para. 91.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/67
12
GE.26-01212
regarding lèse-majesté laws.24 The Working Group also concurs with the Committee’s view
that the application of criminal defamation laws should only be countenanced in the most
serious cases and imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty.25
87.
The Working Group notes that, in 2022, the Human Rights Committee remained
deeply concerned about the persistent violation of the freedom of expression within
Cambodia, including the widespread harassment and intimidation of online activists, and
noted with concern that some criminal offences contained in the Criminal Code, including
defamation, incitement, insult and lèse-majesté, are often used to restrict freedom of
expression disproportionately and excessively.26 The Committee recommended legal reform
in line with article 19 of the Covenant.27 Furthermore, the Committee expressed deep concern
at reports of the use of excessive and disproportionate force to disperse peaceful
demonstrations, leading to widespread arrests and detention of protesters, and specifically
named Mother Nature Cambodia.28
88.
The Working Group further notes the observation by the Special Rapporteur on the
situation of human rights in Cambodia that various civil society actors, including
environmental human rights defenders, had been harassed, arrested, detained and sentenced
to imprisonment, with judicialized lawfare casting a wide shadow over those perceived to be
dissidents, and those actors continuing to be prosecuted for incitement and related offences
in exercising their right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.29
89.
Moreover, in 2025, the Human Rights Council expressed serious concern at the
reported deterioration in the civil and political environment in Cambodia due to the perceived
chilling effects of judicial prosecutions, including arrests and alleged surveillance,
harassment, violence and repressive activities, against members of political parties, trade
unions and civil society, including environmental organizations.30
90.
The present cases prompt the Working Group to reaffirm that the work of human
rights defenders is fundamental to the strengthening of democracy.31 The Working Group has
noted with concern a rise in the arbitrary detention of environmental human rights defenders,
who are defined as individuals and groups who, in their personal or professional capacity and
in a peaceful manner, strive to protect and promote human rights relating to the
environment.32
91.
For these reasons, the Working Group concludes that the Mother Nature Five’s
detention resulted from the exercise of their right to freedom of expression, of assembly and
of association, contrary to articles 19 and 20 (1) of the Universal Declaration and
articles 19 (1) and (2), 21 and 22 (1) of the Covenant, with no legitimate aim or objective in
a democratic society that may justify interference with their rights and freedoms. The
Working Group adds that the actions for which they were deprived of their liberty also
constituted the exercise of their right to freedom of thought and their right to take part in the
conduct of public affairs under articles 18 and 21 (1) of the Universal Declaration and articles
18 (1) and 25 (a) of the Covenant, pursuant to which citizens have the right to exert influence
through public debate and dialogue with their representatives or through their capacity to
organize themselves.33 The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Committee has
dismissed claims of article 25 (a) violations by activists on the ground that they have
24 General comment No. 34 (2011), para. 38.
25 Ibid., para. 47.
26 CCPR/C/KHM/CO/3, para. 34.
27 Ibid., para. 35.
28 Ibid., para. 36.
29 A/HRC/60/86, para. 24.
30 Human Rights Council resolution 60/33, para. 21.
31 Opinion No. 13/2025, para. 94.
32 A/HRC/54/51, para. 55. See also Human Rights Council resolution 40/11, para. 1.
33 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 25 (1996) on participation in public affairs and the
right to vote, para. 8; general comment No. 34 (2011), paras. 11 and 20; and the Declaration on the
Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect
Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, art. 8.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/67
GE.26-01212
13
participated in the public debate through elected representatives and through their
association’s actions.34
92.
The Working Group thus finds that the Mother Nature Five’s deprivation of liberty is
arbitrary and falls within category II.
(c)
Category III
93.
Given its finding that the deprivation of liberty of the Mother Nature Five is arbitrary
under category II, the Working Group wishes to emphasize that no trial should have taken
place. However, the Mother Nature Five have been tried, convicted and imprisoned. In the
light of the above, the Working Group will now consider whether the alleged violations of
the right to a fair trial and due process were grave enough to give their deprivation of liberty
an arbitrary character, such that it falls within category III.
94.
Regarding the source’s allegation that the Mother Nature Five were denied the right
to a hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal with the presumption of innocence,
in violation of articles 10 and 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration and article 14 (1) and (2)
of the Covenant, the Government submits that the “judicial authority is independent” and,
accordingly, “decisions are made at the court’s discretion, based solely on the facts, the law
and the evidence”. However, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in
Cambodia has expressed concern at the justice system being used to apply laws and policies
to sanction decisions from the top. 35 The Working Group has also noted international
criticism of Cambodia for weaponizing its court system to methodically reduce the scope for
citizen action.36
95.
The Human Rights Committee found that a situation where the functions and
competences of the judiciary and the executive are not clearly distinguishable or where the
latter is able to control or direct the former is incompatible with the notion of an independent
and impartial tribunal within the meaning of article 14 (1) of the Covenant.37 The Working
Group has also held that the right to an independent and impartial trial and to equality before
the courts were violated when a President has the power to appoint and remove judges at the
highest level, which prevents the courts from operating independently of the executive.38
96.
According to the Human Rights Committee, the requirement of impartiality has two
aspects. First, judges must not allow their judgment to be influenced by personal bias or
prejudice, nor harbour preconceptions about the particular case before them, nor act in ways
that improperly promote the interests of one of the parties to the detriment of the other.
Second, the tribunal must also appear to a reasonable observer to be impartial.39 A tribunal is
not impartial if it does not consider evidence in favour of the defendant and unfairly favours
the prosecution.40
97.
During the Mother Nature Five’s trial, Phnom Penh Court of First Instance exhibited
a number of key instances of bias in its six hearings (see para. 59 above). The court assigned
four defence lawyers selected by the Cambodian Bar Association to the defendants in
addition to the three retained by non-governmental organizations and the court-assigned
lawyers raised doubts about their impartiality with behaviour such as liaising in a friendly
manner with the prosecutor and standing next to him during the trial. The presiding judge
stated that the court would draw adverse inferences from the defendants exercising their right
not to answer questions. The media, supporters and family members were not allowed access
to the hearings. When a defence lawyer asked the police to show evidence of an intent to
34 Beyden et al. v. France (CCPR/C/85/D/1400/2005), para. 4.5; and Brun v. France
(CCPR/C/88/D/1453/2006), para. 6.4. See also Paul Taylor, A Commentary on the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: The UN Human Rights Committee’s Monitoring of ICCPR
Rights (Cambridge University Press, 2020), pp. 695 and 696.
35 A/HRC/60/86, para. 24.
36 Opinions No. 75/2021, para. 74; and No. 5/2023, para. 82.
37 Bahamonde v. Equatorial New Guinea (CCPR/C/49/D/468/1991), para. 9.4.
38 Opinion No. 90/2017, para. 29.
39 General comment No. 32 (2007), para. 21; and Karttunen v. Finland, communication No. 387/1989,
para. 7.2.
40 Opinions No. 5/2021, para. 54; and No. 76/2018, paras. 63 and 64.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/67
14
GE.26-01212
“attack”, a key element in proving the charge of “plotting”, the presiding judge instructed her
to stop using “winning questions”. The presiding judge denied, on procedural grounds, the
request by a defence lawyer that several Facebook videos, which were submitted by the
police in an updated list of evidence, be shown to the court; the same judge denied a request
by Ms. Phuon to upload a video that she had not been able submit earlier because she was in
prison.
98.
The court’s appointment of biased lawyers as defence counsels would violate the
Mother Nature Five’s right to legal assistance of their own choosing under article 14 (3) (b)
and (d) of the Covenant. The presiding judge’s threat of making adverse inferences from the
defendants’ exercise of the right not to be compelled to testify against themselves or to
confess guilt would contravene article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant. The denial of access to
hearings for the media, supporters and family members without valid reason would violate
the right to a public hearing guaranteed in article 14 (1) of the Covenant. The judge’s apparent
interference in the cross-examination by the defence would violate article 14 (3) (e) of the
Covenant. The Working Group notes that the Government did not provide any explanation
for the above in its response.
99.
The Working Group is also concerned by the court’s failure to provide written
reasoning or transcripts of the verdict to the defendants. The production of such documents
should be an integral component of the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent,
independent and impartial tribunal established by law. It is made clear in article 14 (1) of the
Covenant that any judgment rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at law is to be made
public, barring certain special circumstances. The Government has not rebutted this
allegation from the source.
100.
The Working Group also considers that the absence of such crucial information
negates effective access to an appeal. The Working Group has previously held that the failure
to provide a written judgment adversely affects the right to appeal, in violation of article 14 (5)
of the Covenant.41
101.
Moreover, the source submits, and the Government does not contest, that the Mother
Nature Five have been detained in five separate prisons across the country, located hundreds
of kilometres away from each other, their homes and their families. Given that the appeal
proceedings are still pending, the Working Group expresses concern that such unprecedented
separation of the appellants from their lawyers risks undermining their rights to legal counsel,
to be tried without undue delay and to appeal a judicial decision in a higher court as
guaranteed in article 14 (1), (3) (b), (c) and (d) and (5) of the Covenant. It is also not in
compliance with rules 58, 59 and 61 of the Nelson Mandela Rules.
102.
Given the above observations, the Working Group concludes that the numerous
violations of the right to a fair trial and due process are of such gravity as to give the Mother
Nature Five’s deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character that falls within category III.
(d)
Category V
103.
The Working Group recalls several non-cumulative indicators that serve to establish
the discriminatory nature of detention. These include: the deprivation of liberty was part of a
pattern of persecution against the detained person, including through previous detention;
other persons with similarly distinguishing characteristics have also been persecuted; or the
context suggests that the authorities have detained a person on discriminatory grounds or to
prevent them from exercising their human rights.42
104.
The Working Group notes a pattern of intimidation against the Mother Nature Five in
relation to their activities as advocates for environmental human rights. According to the
source, the members of Mother Nature Cambodia have repeatedly faced arrest, detention and
beatings by the authorities since 2015. The Government even removed Mother Nature
Cambodia from the non-governmental organization registry, but its members, including the
Mother Nature Five, continued their activities online.
41 Opinion No. 49/2017, para. 48.
42 A/HRC/36/37, para. 48.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/67
GE.26-01212
15
105.
The Government submits that “the law must be applied equally to all individuals” and
that “no one may seek refuge under the pretext of human rights or affiliation with a civil
society organization or political party to evade legal responsibility for their actions”.
However, the Working Group has already determined above that the law cited by the
Government was inconsistent with international human rights law, that the Mother Nature
Five were detained by unlawful violation of their fundamental rights under international law
and that their trial failed to meet international human rights standards.
106.
Moreover, in the discussion above concerning category II, the Working Group
established that the Mother Nature Five’s detention resulted from the peaceful exercise of
their human rights under international law. When detention results from the active exercise
of civil and political rights, there is a strong presumption that the detention also constitutes a
violation of international law on the ground of discrimination based on political or other
views.43
107.
For these reasons, the Working Group finds that the Mother Nature Five were
deprived of their liberty on discriminatory grounds, on the basis of their political opinions
and their status as human rights defenders. The deprivation of their liberty violated articles 2
and 7 of the Universal Declaration and articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant, and was arbitrary
under category V.
(e)
Concluding remarks
108.
The Working Group expresses concern at the reported overcrowding of the prisons in
Cambodia and the health issues related to the Mother Nature Five raised by the source. The
Working Group is compelled to remind the Government that, in accordance with article 10 (1)
of the Covenant and rules 1, 24, 27 and 118 of the Nelson Mandela Rules, all persons
deprived of their liberty must be treated with humanity and with respect for their inherent
dignity, including by receiving appropriate medical care.44
109.
The Working Group further notes that five other members of Mother Nature
Cambodia were tried and convicted in absentia as co-defendants by Phnom Penh Court of
First Instance. Given that the acts for which these five individuals have been indicted and the
crimes for which they have been convicted overlap substantially with those for the Mother
Nature Five, the Working Group recommends that their verdicts be reviewed and
reconsidered to prevent their arbitrary deprivation of liberty in the future.
3.
Disposition
110.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Chandaravuth Ly, Kunthea Long, Keoraksmey Phuon,
Ratha Thun and Leanghy Yim, being in contravention of articles 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11 (1)
and (2), 18, 19, 20 (1) and 21 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
articles 2 (1), 9 (1), 10 (1), 14 (1), (2), (3) (b), (c), (d), (e) and (g) and (5), 15 (1), 18
(1), 19 (1) and (2), 21 and 22 (1), 25 (a) and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories I, II, III and V.
111.
The Working Group requests the Government of Cambodia to take the steps necessary
to remedy the situation of Mr. Ly, Ms. Long, Ms. Phuon, Mr. Thun and Mr. Yim without
delay and bring it into conformity with the relevant international norms, including those set
out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights.
112.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Ly, Ms. Long, Ms. Phuon, Mr. Thun
and Mr. Yim immediately and accord them an enforceable right to compensation and other
reparations, in accordance with international law.
43 Opinions No. 88/2017, para. 43; No. 13/2018, para. 34; No. 59/2019, para. 79; No. 39/2024, para. 69;
and No. 51/2024, para. 117.
44 Opinion No. 26/2017, para. 66.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/67
16
GE.26-01212
113.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Mr. Ly,
Ms. Long, Ms. Phuon, Mr. Thun and Mr. Yim and to take appropriate measures against those
responsible for the violation of their rights.
114.
The Working Group requests the Government to translate, publish and disseminate
the present opinion through all available means and as widely as possible.
4.
Follow-up procedure
115.
In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group requests
the source and the Government to provide it with information on action taken in follow-up
to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including:
(a)
Whether Mr. Chandaravuth Ly, Ms. Kunthea Long, Ms. Keoraksmey Phuon,
Mr. Ratha Thun and Mr. Leanghy Yim have been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Ly,
Ms. Long, Ms. Phuon, Mr. Thun and Mr. Yim;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of the rights of
Mr. Ly, Ms. Long, Ms. Phuon, Mr. Thun and Mr. Yim and, if so, the outcome of the
investigation;
(d)
Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to
harmonize the laws and practices of Cambodia with its international obligations in line with
the present opinion;
(e)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
116.
The Government is invited to inform the Working Group of any difficulties it may
have encountered in implementing the recommendations made in the present opinion and
whether further technical assistance is required, for example through a visit by the Working
Group.
117.
The Working Group requests the source and the Government to provide the
above-mentioned information within six months of the date of transmission of the present
opinion. However, the Working Group reserves the right to take its own action in follow-up
to the opinion if new concerns in relation to the case are brought to its attention. Such action
would enable the Working Group to inform the Human Rights Council of progress made in
implementing its recommendations, as well as any failure to take action.
118.
The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Council has encouraged all States
to cooperate with the Working Group and has requested them to take account of its views
and, where necessary, to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily
deprived of their liberty, and to inform the Working Group of the steps they have taken.45
[Adopted on 12 November 2025]
45 Human Rights Council resolution 60/8, paras. 6 and 9.