the male child, CHHIT Narong,….
Je hart verkrampt,
je maag draait om.
Eigenlijk wil je
niet horen
probeer je
‘t onvermijdelijke
buiten te sluiten
doe je alsof
je niet beter weet.
je maag draait om.
Eigenlijk wil je
niet horen
probeer je
‘t onvermijdelijke
buiten te sluiten
doe je alsof
je niet beter weet.
Zolang het een vreemde,
niet door jou gekende,
misschien beminde,
zeker gewaardeerde
dader gaat.
Zul je spreken
van grote schande
van moeten hangen
en ondragelijk
slachtofferleed
Maar dan is ‘t een bekende
één die je vertrouwt
door dik en dun
steunt.
Blijkt het
onmogelijk te
bekennen :
Hij is vreselijk
FOUT
Blind voor
de uitspraak
het smeergeld
ga je hem
vreselijk verwennen
zijn leed erkennen
en het jongetje
CHHIT Narong
laten je volkomen
KOUD
in reactie op Vonnis Cees C.
Inmiddels heeft Cees C. Het vonnis verwijderd van zijn blog. Zijn excuus: Het vonnis wordt verdraaid. Mijn woorden worden verdraaid. Tuurlijk, Cees, gewoon blijven liegen.
Deelnemerslijst
Indrukwekkend
treffend
l begrijp ik de achtergronden niet
“CHHIT Narong”deze begrijp ik niet.
Gaat het over Robert M.? Waarom noem je dan een naam?? Dat willen de ouders toch niet… nog helemaal te zwijgen over het kind.
Of gaat het ergens anders over?
Hallo Maria,
Nee het gaat niet over Robert M. maar over Cees C. CHHIT Narong (11 jaar) was zijn slachtoffer.
ik voel me aangesproken
vindt het echter moeilijk te oordelen over mensen
vooral niet als hij is vrijgesproken
en net als maria trepp ken ik ook de details niet
maar ik begrijp wat je bedoelt
Assyke Hij is niet vrijgesproken maar veroordeeld voor 18 maanden waarvan 8 maanden voorwaardelijk. Hij is veroordeeld voor het onzedelijk betasten van een minderjarige (de 11 jarige CHIIT Narong).
Je bent echt niet beinvloed, Ina? Het lange rechterlijk arrest goed gelezen?
Uit het verslag van de rechtszaak:
However, according to the responses of the male child, CHHIT Narong, he responded the same, both before the Judicial Police and the Investigating Judge, that while he was sitting on TAKES’s thigh, he put his hand into his trousers and touched his penis and then he squeezed his thigh and he had done this to him two or three times. Actually, the victim CHHIT Narong is just 11 years old and based on psychology, if the accused did not play with his penis, he definitely did not respond the same, that the accused had played his penis.
- The same responses of the child CHHIT Narong, reveal that the accused truly committed the offense specified as punishable in accordance with Article 83 of the Law on Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation;
To sentence the accused, named CHAMULEAU CORNELIS MARINUS JOSEPH, male, 65 years old, Dutch citizen, to 18 (eighteen) months in prison. This sentence shall be enforced in prison for 10 (ten) months and the remaining sentence shall be completely suspended, for [acts of] pornography against minors under the age of 15 years old, committed in village 3, quarter No. 1, Preah Sihanouk municipality, Preah Sihanouk province, on April 2010, the offense to be punishable in accordance with the provisions of Article 43 of the Law on the Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation. The accused finished the sentence of imprisonment on February 22, 2011;
ter aanvulling:
Article 43: Indecent Act against Minors under Fifteen Years
‘Indecent act’ in this law shall mean an act of touching or exposing a genital or
other sexual part of another, or of having another touch the actor’s or a third person’s
genital or other sexual part, with the intent to stimulate or satisfy the actor’s sexual
desire.
A person who commits an indecent act against another person of the age of less
than 15 years shall be punished with imprisonment for 1 to 3 years and a fine of
2,000,000 to 6,000,000 riels.
A person who repeatedly commits any offense stipulated in Article 42 or this article
shall be punished with double the prison punishment.
http://www.baliprocess.net/files/Camboda/NLA-cambodia%20new%20law%20on%20trafficking%20and%20sexual%20exploitation%20-%20english.pdf
Joost ik kan heel goed lezen. Jij ook?
Wil je ook de twee laatste bijdragen van Cees (17+18/3) op ceeschamuleau.wordpress.com lezen?
@ Joost : De bijdragen waarin hij zich opnieuw een slachtofferrol aanmeet en en passant vermeld dat hij 30.000 dollar heeft ‘geïnvesteerd’ om vrij te komen?
Hij is veroordeeld op basis van de getuigenis van één kind. Alle andere kinderen hebben toegegeven dat ze Cees vals beshuldigd hadden.
In Nederland zou het onvoldoende bewijs zijn. Voor jou is wel genoeg Ina?
Is het voor jou wel voldoende bewijs, Ina?
(let ff niet op die kromme zin hierboven)
Ach, CAM, het is maar de verklaring van één kind toch? En de kinderpornografie voor eigen gebruik doet er ook niet toe.
In Nederland had hij in ieder geval niet de mogelijkheid gehad om met 30.000 dollar de zaak ‘gunstig’ te beïnvloeden.
Ik snap niet waarom de naam van dat kind genoemd wordt.
Vreselijk.
Ik had dit nog niet gezien.
Hoe voelt het, om na jaren in Engeland gewoond te hebben te lezen dat jij geen Engels spreekt ?
Je zou toch bijna aan jezelf gaan twijfelen
Dat was ik natuurlijk.
Matig gedicht met rare enjambementen
“het is maar de verklaring van één kind toch?”
Dat zijn jouw woorden. Zo heb ik het niet gesteld. Maar goed, vind jij dan maar dat het genoeg is…… Ik ben blij dat het Nederland niet genoeg is.
Dan is Julian Assange ook schuldig.
Ja toch?
@ Maria : Met het noemen van de naam wordt het kind een persoon.
@ Knutselsmurf : Ik twijfel niet zo gauw…;-)
@ Zich van Verre:
Gedicht????
Dat is niet een label wat ik erop heb geplakt.
@ CAM : =Hij is veroordeeld op basis van de getuigenis van één kind.=
Letterlijk jouw woorden.
Assange???
Dank je wel voor dit blog Ina, heb me er maar eens in verdiept en voel me weer eens op het verkeerde been gezet door mijn naïviteit en goedgelovigheid.
Een hele dag kwijt maar weer een stuk wijzer, ik moet me meer verdiepen blijkt maar weer
@ Beukmans : Soms moet je even wat afstand nemen en achter de façade kijken om een totaal beeld te krijgen.
@Ina: Je hebt helemaal gelijk, in het dagelijkse leven doe ik dat ook altijd, dit blogwereldje blijft me verbazen met al zijn haken en ogen maar ben inmiddels genoeg gewaarschuwd om met andere ogen rond te gaan kijken.
Fijn weekeind!
Goed blog. Dat wil ik nog even kwijt
thnx François
Maar wat mij nog het meest verbaasd, Ina, is jouw vertrouwen in Justitie Cambodja. Het land staat bekend als zeer corrupt.
@ CAM : 30.000 dollar en nog een veroordeling toch?
Wat bedoel je?
ceeschamuleau zegt:
17 maart 2011 om 15:11
….., ben ik 30 duizend dollar lichter …..
Dus?
Dus wat? Jij begon over corruptie…. of noem je het liever strategie?
Nee hoor ik vraag je waarom je de conclusie van justitie Cambodja voor zoete koek slikt.
Ik zie niet wat die 30.000 er mee te maken heeft. JIJ wel?
Cam : Je letterlijke woorden: =Het land staat bekend als zeer corrupt.= Dus jij verbindt de veroordeling van Cees aan corruptie.
Hij is er met een lage straf en geen boete van afgekomen en zegt zelf dat het hem 30.000 dollar heeft gekost.
Zijn veroordeling en straf:
- To sentence the accused, named CHAMULEAU CORNELIS MARINUS JOSEPH, male, 65 years old, Dutch citizen, to 18 (eighteen) months in prison. This sentence shall be enforced in prison for 10 (ten) months and the remaining sentence shall be completely suspended, for [acts of] pornography against minors under the age of 15 years old, committed in village 3, quarter No. 1, Preah Sihanouk municipality, Preah Sihanouk province, on April 2010, the offense to be punishable in accordance with the provisions of Article 43 of the Law on the Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation. The accused finished the sentence of imprisonment on February 22, 2011;
de strafmaat:
Article 43: Indecent Act against Minors under Fifteen Years
‘Indecent act’ in this law shall mean an act of touching or exposing a genital or
other sexual part of another, or of having another touch the actor’s or a third person’s
genital or other sexual part, with the intent to stimulate or satisfy the actor’s sexual
desire.
A person who commits an indecent act against another person of the age of less
than 15 years shall be punished with imprisonment for 1 to 3 years and a fine of
2,000,000 to 6,000,000 riels.
A person who repeatedly commits any offense stipulated in Article 42 or this article
shall be punished with double the prison punishment.
“Cam : Je letterlijke woorden: =Het land staat bekend als zeer corrupt.= Dus jij verbindt de veroordeling van Cees aan corruptie”
Nee die conclusie heb ik nergens getrokken of neergeschreven. Jij schuift dit mij in de schoenen en ik maak bezwaar. Je hebt duidelijk geen idee van mijn conclusies.
Mijn indruk is dat jij een en ander verbindt zonder dat dat de vebinding duidelijk is.
Ik zie de genoemde 30.000 in verband met de corruptie waar het land berucht om is. Als je daar in het gevang terecht komt, en je hebt geld, dan moet je betalen. Terecht of onterecht, teveel of veel te veel dat doet er niet toe. Jij en IK, als we daar in de gevangenis terecht komen dan moeten we betalen. Terechte bedragen en schimmige bedragen.
Staat volkomen los van de schuldvraag.
Dus ik herhaal mijn vraag van 21/3 15:47 nog maar eens.
“Wat bedoel je?” in je antwoord van 21/3 15:06
@ Cam : Jouw conclusies interesseren mij geen moer. Ik vraag er ook niet naar.
Als je geen verband wil leggen tussen corruptie en de veroordeling van Cees, waarom begin je er dan over.
Ik verbind niets, ik lees alleen de woorden van Cees :
ben ik 30 duizend dollar lichter
Het is algemeen bekend dat Cambodja het op twee na corrupste land ter wereld is en dat iedereen op zijn klompen kan aanvoelen dat advokaten en magistraten “niet van de wind kunnen leven”.
dat ik bankroet ben na alles wat ik heb moeten betalen aan “juridische bijstand”
en denk aan het kind …….
“Als je geen verband wil leggen tussen corruptie en de veroordeling van Cees, waarom begin je er dan over.”
Omdat jij hem legt. Ik vraag waarom?
@ CAM :
De woorden van Cees:
ben ik 30 duizend dollar lichter
Het is algemeen bekend dat Cambodja het op twee na corrupste land ter wereld is en dat iedereen op zijn klompen kan aanvoelen dat advokaten en magistraten “niet van de wind kunnen leven”.
dat ik bankroet ben na alles wat ik heb moeten betalen aan “juridische bijstand”
@CAM,
Je kan drammen tot je toetsenbord uit elkaar valt, maar de rechter heeft gesproken. Hij gelooft het kind en hij gelooft Cees niet.
Cees is niet in hoger beroep gegaan, en daarmee is de uitspraak definitief.
Ina 19:13
Het land is corrupt, ja und?
Is iemand schuldig omdat hij zijn advocaat betaalt?
@ Cam : =Het land is corrupt, ja und?= Dat was toch een argument van jouw om aan te tonen dat de conclusie van Justitie in twijfel getrokken zou moeten worden?
=Is iemand schuldig omdat hij zijn advocaat betaalt?= Nee, omdat hij door een rechter veroordeeld is.
Van mij MOET helemaal niks.
Maar goed, jij vertrouwt blind op justitie in Cambodja.
Ik had van jou een kritischer houding verwacht, ik heb me vergist.
En je bent het met me eens dat die 30.000 niets zegt over de schuldvraag?
@ Cam : Wat ben je toch een draaikont en een drammer. Volgens mij is het juist mijn kritische houding die je hier naar toe heeft getrokken om te reageren.
Een kritische houding die jou zelf ook zou passen.
Maar nee hoor.
Onder je blog wordt de heer Opinie gesteld dat :
1) Ik heb de beedigde vertaaling van het vonnis gelezen. Daarin staat dat Cees NIET schuldig is aan ontucht met kleine jongetjes. Hij is schuldig bevonden aan het in bezit heben van porno. Het vonnis zegt niet wat voor soort porno het was.
en wat antwoord jij:
@Meneer_opinie: ah nu is de reactie af. Kijk dat zouden meer mensen moeten doen, goed lezen.
Of jullie sluiten de ogen voor wat er werkelijk staat of jullie kunnen gewoon geen Engels lezen.
Het grappige is namelijk dat hij voor het bezit van kinderporno niet bestraft is. Het is wel vastgesteld dat hij het in bezit had. (Je weet wel die foute foto’s van die Duitse vriend).
In Nederland is bezit trouwens wel strafbaar.
Schelden doet geen zeer.
Ik kan lezen, ik heb alles gelezen, ook de veroordeling van de rechter.
De vraag die ik jou stel is, “Slik jij het vonis van dat corrupte land voor zoete koek?”
Daar draai je volcontinu omheen.
Schelden???? Ik beschrijf je gedrag.
“draaikont en drammer”
Inderdaad een beschrijving van gedrag….
Ik weet niet of ik er goed aan doe om te reageren maar begrijp niet waarom deze discussie blijft voort sudderen of mis ik iets?
Ik wist helemaal niets van dit gebeuren tot Cees op mijn blog reageerde en er een opmerking over maakte.
Ook toen heb ik me er niet in verdiept maar heb hem een eerlijk antwoord gegeven op zijn blog.
Toen Cees in het openbaar knutsel aanviel op zijn blog ben ik me er in gaan verdiepen en heb onbevangen zonder vooroordeel 16 uur gespendeerd om me in te lezen, zowel van Cees zijn kant als de andere kanten.
Mijn conclusie was dat ik niet de enige naïeveling ben, gelukkig heb ik er indertijd geen geld ingestoken want dan had ik aangifte gedaan bij de politie wegens verduistering van sponsor gelden temeer daar Cees hier geen openheid van zaken geeft. Ook zijn voorkeur (door hem zelf geuit) voor kleine kinderen stuitte mij tegen de borst.
Alles bij elkaar opgeteld is Cees niet iemand van onbesproken gedrag en van zulke mensen houd ik me verre, wanneer hij vind dat hem niets te verwijten valt raad ik hem aan om juridische stappen te ondernemen anders blijf ik bij mijn mening die volledig is gebaseerd op zijn eigen en verhalen van anderen.
Overigens vergeet ik nog te vermelden dat ik ook erg ben geschrokken van de manier waarop Cees over de inwoners van zijn gastland spreekt, ik begrijp echt niet dat men daar zomaar overheen stapt als supporter.
Ik herhaal mijn vraag die je niet beantwoord,
“Ina, slik jij de veroordeling in dat corrupte land voor zoete koek?”
@Catharina
Vreemd dat jij de verhalen van Cees wel voor zoete koek schijnt te slikken, sorry ik ben geen Ina natuurlijk, maar het verbaast me of mis ik iets?
@ Beukmans : Duidelijk verhaal.
@ Cam : Ik slik niets voor zoete koek, zou jij ook eens moeten proberen.
Beukmans; Waar slik ik wat voor zoete koek?
Ik denk dat je verkeerd geïnformeerd bent.
Ina: in bovenstaand blog wel.
@CAM :
Je hebt nu 15 keer hetzelfde riedeltje afgedraaid hier. Ik denk dat het de rest van de wereld onderhand duidelijk is, wat je punt is. En dat ze beter bij je uit de buurt kunnen blijven. Je kan gerust nog 45 keer terugkomen, maar ik denk niet dat dat veel aan de situatie zal veranderen.
Ina kiest er voor om mensen hun eigen domheid te laten exposieren.
Ik koos voor een ip-ban, en sindsdien heb ik geen last meer van je.
Sorry Ina een laatste opmerking als het mag anders mag je hem verwijderen.
@Catharina
Mijn informatie heb ik (nogmaals) zonder vooroordeel gehaald uit wat er inmiddels geschreven is ook door Cees.
Het was een kwestie van zoeken en goed lezen, that’s all, misschien een idee?
Hier wil ik het bij laten want ik hoef niemand te overtuigen, ben mans genoeg om zelf conclusies te trekken uit hetgeen beschikbaar is en dat is veel heel veel, ook van Cees eigen hand.
@ Beukmans : Je mag hier zo vaak als je wilt reageren, dat moet je gezien het bovenstaande wel duidelijk zijn.
Bovendien waardeer ik jouw reacties.
@Beukmans: dat is niet wat ik vroeg. Lezen is een kunst….
“Beukmans; Waar slik ik wat voor zoete koek?” (zie 23/3 20:15)
@Ina: Dank je wel maar zoals ik al schreef laat ik het hier bij vwb dit log.
Bij sommige mensen moet ik wel eens denken aan volgelingen van een sekte leider. Zo’n leider kan de meest verschrikkelijke dingen doen en toch blijven sommige volgelingen ze trouw en in ze geloven.
Mensen zijn soms verbazingwekkend in hun trouw…..
Fijne lente dag!
@ Beukmans : En wat was het een mooie lentedag. Ik heb vanmiddag met hond Dinah toch zeker drie uur op de hei door gebracht.
De psyche van de mens is soms onnavolgbaar. De eigen misvattingen onderkennen is voor sommigen onmogelijk. In de spiegel kijken al helemaal.
@Ina: Ha mooi dat je hebt genoten, doe je goed na alle drukte!
Is het nu een beetje rustig aan het worden in je toko?
Goed lezen is echt niet makkelijk, heb ik ook wel eens moeite mee hoor maar als ik schrijf dat ik het er bij laat is het toch wel duidelijk lijkt me.
Op deze dagen mis ik mijn witte soms vreselijk, toch wil ik geen ander meer want zoals zij was er maar een.
Ik zat altijd met haar te kletsen, werkt ook als een spiegel
Inmiddels heeft cees na de uitzending van Peter R de Vries over Bas R in cambodja zijn vonnis weggehaald. Daarom hier alsnog:
KINGDOM OF CAMBODIA
Nation Religion King
*********
(Logo)
Preah Sihanouk Provincial Court of First Instance
No. 27 tBr/2011
Ruling Order
I, the undersigned, SAR Linna, Judge of Preah Sihanouk Provincial Court of the First Instance;
Pursuant to:
- Article 287 of the Code of Criminal Procedures, promulgated by Royal Kram No. NS/RK/0807/027, dated August 10, 2007;
- Criminal case file No. 135, dated April 22, 2010;
- Investigative request No. 1085 Gk10, dated April 22, 2010, from the Prosecution Representative to Preah Sihanouk Provincial Court of the First Instance;
- Investigative request No. 39, dated April 22, 2010;
- Order of final conclusion No. 3773, dated December 31, 2010, from the Prosecution Representative to Preah Sihanouk Provincial Court of First Instance, requesting the Investigating Judge to acquit the accused, named C CORNELIS MARINUS JOSEPH, of purchasing children [for the purposes of] prostitution, pornographic pictures and child-related materials and requesting the Investigating Judge to send the accused C CORNELIS MARINUS JOSEPH for trial for pornographic [activities against] minors under the age of 15 years old;
After the investigation, the search for exhibits and examination of the case, it was revealed that:
On April 22, 2010, the Prosecution Representative to Preah Sihanouk Provincial Court of First Instance accused C CORNELIS MARINUS JOSEPH of purchasing children [for the purposes of] prostitution, pornographic pictures and child-related materials and pornographic [activities against] minors under the age of 15 years old, committed in village 03, quarter No. 1, Preah Sihanouk municipality, Preah Sihanouk province, in April 2010 against the male children CHHIT Narong, SAR Bona Sakhan and YIM Rithy.
Having seen the responses of the accused, named C CORNELIS MARINUS JOSEPH, providing responses similar to those provided at the Judicial Police, Prosecution Representative and the Investigating Judge that he did not commit any [of the activities] as per the accusation of the Prosecution Representative; he was the manager of a Supporting Center School since 2006 with TUN Sin helping manage that school. Normally, from Monday to Friday each week, between four and six o’clock in the evening, he worked at the kiosk next to the Supporting Center School with the teacher SOK Sipich, Bal and sometime Veth came to sit with him and there were approximately four to five children who asked him to play dice with them and when they won, he gave them five hundred riels to 1,000 riels. He [said he] knew CHHIT Narong, SAR Bona Sakhan and YIM Rithy aka Buoy because they studied at the Supporting Center School and sometimes used to play games at the kiosk with other children. He never allowed these three children to sit on his thigh and he never played with or touched their penises or squeezed the thighs of these three children and he never allowed them to play with or touch his penis. He never supported Rong but he had given Nakhan 20 dollars on three occasions and helped sponsored his family 50 dollars per month because Nakhan’s mother has twin children; and he also gave Rith 10 dollars a month for looking after the garden. He never used money or other things to attract the children or purchased anything for them in order to arouse his feelings. Regarding the 52 pictures the Judge showed him, he knew only one picture (photo number 1). Apart from that, he had never known any of the children in those pictures. The [other] pictures were sent by his German friend eight years ago and he copied them to a CD in about 1995, and kept them in the room to look at on his own. However, since that time, he had never played them and he never showed those pictures or distributed them to anyone else. He affirmed that the laptop he had used was locked with a password. The pornographic pictures the court developed from the film were the pornographic pictures of his wife, children, siblings and his nieces/nephew, which he took from 1970 to 1986 in France and the Netherlands.
Having seen the minutes on the complaint lodged by the civil plaintiff, named VUN Touch, father of the male child CHHIT Narong, requesting to help render justice for his son, who recently told him that a foreigner, named TAKES, always asked him to go the kiosk with the aim of playing with his penis and gave him 500 riels to 1,000 riels.
Having seen the responses of the civil plaintiff, named VUN Touch, who responded before the Investigating Judge that his son had told him that TAKES used to play with his penis but he did not pay attention to that because he thought that he [Takes] played with him [CHHIT Narong] as someone older plays with children, in an affectionate manner. He [VUN Touch] requested to withdraw the complaint against TAKES and requested that the court help reduce the offense to TAKES because he is a good person.
Having seen the minutes on the complaint lodged by the civil plaintiff, named SAR Muh, the father of the victim SAR Bona Sakhan, requested to help render him justice, he heard his son tell him that TAKES brought him to the kiosk and asked him to get undressed and played with his penis and gave him 1,000 riels.
Having seen the responses of the civil plaintiff, named SAR Muh, responded before the Investigating Judge that he knew TAKES and that he is a good-natured and good-hearted person who always helped provide clothes and money to Nakhan. The fact that he lodged a complaint against TAKES and all the words he stated at the Police Station that TAKES played with his son’s penis by giving him 1,000 riels and other statements, he responded what was coaxed and duped by the teacher Sin, and he pledged that if he successfully lodged a complaint against TAKES, he would give him a motorbike. In fact, TAKES did not act at all according to the statement in his complaint. He withdrew the complaint against him.
Having seen the responses of the civil plaintiff, named YIM Vanny, he responded before the Investigating Judge that he was the biological father of YIM Rithy and he requested not to lodge a complaint and did not claim any compensatory damages from TAKES.
Having seen the responses of the male child victim, named CHHIT Narong, who responded similarly as he had before the Judicial Police and Investigating Judge, that he had known TAKES for a long time and he often played dice at the kiosk with other children and if anyone won, TAKES gave him 500 riels. On a date he didn’t remember, he won and TAKES gave him 500 riels and then he stopped playing and went to sit on TAKES’s thigh and he put his hand into his trousers and touched his penis and he immediately withdrew his hand and then he squeezed his thigh a bit and he stopped. He always did this to him two or three times. TAKES never let him touch or play with his penis. TAKES never asked him into his rented room. For the entire time he had known him [TAKES], he had never showed him pornographic pictures or videos and he had never asked him to undress for him to see either. Regarding the pornographic pictures the judge showed him, he did not know any children and he had never seen them.
Having seen the responses of the victim male child, named SAR Bona Sakhan, who responded similarly to the way he had before to the Judicial Police and Investigating Judge that he had known TAKES since he studied at the Supporting Center School and he is a good person who always helped support him and the children at the Supporting Center School. He gave him 20 dollars on three occasions and 10 dollars per month for study and gave his mother 50 dollars a month to bring up his younger brother who is his twin. The fact that he told the police and Malup Tapang Organization that TAKES used to bring him to his bedroom and he played with his penis and due to the fact that the teacher Sin ordered him to respond like that and pledged to give a motorbike to his father and a telephone to him after the completion of the complaint lodged against TAKES. In fact, TAKES never played with his penis and he never asked him to play with his penis. He never saw TAKES play with the penises of the other children. TAKES had never showed the pornographic pictures to him and he never asked him to undress for him to see. Regarding all the pornographic pictures that the judge had showed him, he had never seen them before and did not know any children.
Having seen the responses of the male child victim YIM Rithy that he responded that he got to know TAKES because he is the manager of the school he was studying at and he is a good person who always helped the children. One day, he asked him for 10 dollars to purchase clothes. Then he asked him for 20 dollars for his mother and he gave it to him. TAKES never brought him to his bedroom and he never played with his penis and never asked him to play with his either. He had never seen TAKES play with A Rong’s penis or those of the others. Although he responded before the police that he saw TAKES ask A Rong to sit on his thigh and put his hand into A Rong’s trousers, in fact, he did not see it; A Rong told him this. The response before the police stated that he did not do anything to him, just put his hand on his penis but he put his hand on his trousers only; he did not put his hand into the trousers. He did not say anything like this – TAKES never showed him the pornographic pictures and never asked him to get undressed for him to take photos. He and other children often played dice at the kiosk and whoever won, TAKES gave them 500 riels.
Having seen the responses of the witnesses, SOK Long, CHIN Kea, SAM NAK, SUONG Makara, KUM Kap, BUN Puth, NUON Lida, KIM Panha, MOM Dinay, MOM Dino, KEN Mal and SOK Doeun, who responded similarly, that they knew TAKES because he worked at the Supporting Center School and is a goodhearted person who always gave them money. TAKES always sat in the kiosk to drink beer and they played dice and whoever won, he gave 500 riels. He had never seen TAKES play with the penis of any children and TAKES [never] allowed any children to play his. Moreover, he never played with their penis either. TAKES never brought them into his rented room and he never let them see pornographic pictures and never asked them to get undressed for him to take photos. Regarding all the pornographic pictures that the judge showed them, they did not know anyone in those pictures.
Having seen the responses of the witnesses, SENG Nget, SOK Sipich, MEAS Saveth, TITH Chun and SUY Sochea, who responded similarly, that TAKES is a good person, and both teachers and students at the Supporting Center School loved and liked him. They never saw him act immorally. They used to go to his room but they never saw pornographic pictures in his room.
Having seen the responses of the witness, TUN Sin, who responded before the Investigating Judge the fact that he reported to the Brigadier General, Police Superintendent of Preah Sihanouk Province was due to the fact that there was information relevant to the bad action of TAKES from VOU Savin, a teacher of Children’s Rights at the Supporting Center School and Mr. SEM Sam, Chief of Group 13, village 03, Quarter No. 1 and after inquiries into the three children, namely: YIM Rithy, CHHIT Narong and SAR Bona Sakhan. He used to see TAKES at the kiosk playing with drawing pictures and answering questions to get money from him and he never saw him commit any offense. From his point of view, TAKES could not often commit any [offences] against those children because since he knew him, he is a good person who helped others and loves the children.
Having seen the responses of the witness SUN Sophan, the Judicial Police Officer responded that the 52 pornographic pictures the court showed were developed from a disk in the suspect’s rented room. The officials did not investigate to see if the suspect copied those pictures to disk to look at on his own, or for dissemination. After the investigation, the Office of Anti-Human Trafficking of Preah Sihanouk Province concluded that the suspect committed pornographic acts against children because the officials questioned the children, namely: CHHIT Narong and YIM Rith,y and they stated that the suspect had played their penises and allowed them to play with his penis. The suspect committed the purchase of children [for the purposes of] prostitution because after the questioning of the children CHHIT Narong and YIM Rithy, the two children said that after playing with their penises, the suspect gave them 500 riels each. The suspect committed the offense of puroducing pornographic pictures because during the search of the suspect’s residence the police forces collected a number of disks containing the pornographic images of the children.
Having seen the minutes on detention dated April 21, 2010, of C CORNELIS MARINUS JOSEPH of the Office of Anti-Human Trafficking;
Having seen te minutes on the search for and confiscation of exhibits dated April 21, 2010 of the Office of Anti-Human Trafficking;
Having seen Summary Report No. 474 rbk, dated April 22, 2010, of the Police Station of Preah Sihanouk Province;
Having seen the Ruling Order for Temporary Detention No. 243 BBD/10, dated April 22, 2010, of C CORNELIS MARINUS JOSEPH from the Investigating Judge;
Having seen the Ruling Order for Detention No. 244 BBD/10, dated April 22, 2010 of C CORNELIS MARINUS JOSEPH from the Investigating Judge;
Having seen Order of Non-Release on Bail No. 542 BBD/1010 dated July 13, 2010, of C CORNELIS MARINUS JOSEPH from the Investigating Judge;
Having seen the order on temporary detention No. 778 kdB 2010, dated October 15, 2010, of C CORNELIS MARINUS JOSEPH, from the Investigating Judge;
Having seen the application for withdrawal of the complaint, dated May 10, 2010, filed by the civil plaintiff VUN Touch;
Having seen the report on the finding of assessment No. 33/10 Rbk>bv>, dated August 3, 2010 of one 21-inch silver Apple computer by the Department of Forensic Police, stating that as a result, there were many pictures but it was not relevant to the pornographic pictures of children;
Having seen the report on the finding of assessment No. 58/10 Rbk>bv>, dated November 2, 2010, of one Nikon Digital Camera by the Department of Forensic Police, stating that as a result, there were no pornographic pictures;
Having seen the other relevant documents in this case;
Am of the opinion that:
1- C CORNELIS MARINUS JOSEPH, male, 65 years old, Dutch citizen, Director of the Supporting Center School, born in the Netherlands, currently living in village 03, quarter No. 01, Preah Sihanouk municipality, Preah Sihanouk province, spouse of Mrs. ———-, with whom he has two children, son of Mr. ——— “deceased” and Mrs.——— “deceased”, with no record of any offense committed, was accused by the Prosecution Representative of purchasing the children [for the purposes of] prostitution, pornographic pictures and child-related materials and pornographic [activities against] minors under the age of 15, committed in village 03, quarter No. 01, Preah Sihanouk municipality, Preah Sihanouk province, on April 2010 in accordance with the provisions of Articles 34, 41 and 43 of the Law on the Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation;
2- The three civil plaintiffs withdrew their complaints and stopped claiming compensatory damages from the accused based on the fact that the accused is a good-natured and goodhearted person who always helped others;
3- The responses of the accused, named C CORNELIS MARINUS JOSEPH, stated that regarding the 52 pornographic pictures of the children, he copied them from an email that his German friend sent him eight years ago and he copied them to a disk to look at on his own and he never showed them or distributed them to anyone else and these responses were consistent with the responses of the male children victims CHHIT Narong, YIM Rithy and SAR Bona Sakhan as well as the responses of the witnesses SOK Long, CHIN Pha, SAM Nak, SUON Makara, PHUM Kap, BUN Puth, TUON Lida, KIM Panha, MOM Dinay, MOM Dino, KEN Mean and SOK Dien, who had consistently responded that TAKES never showed pornographic pictures to them and never asked them to undress for him to take photos. Concerning the 52 pornographic pictures that the Judge showed them, he did not know any of them. Moreover, according to the responses of the witnesses SENG Nget, SOK Sipich, MEAS Saveth, TITH Phon and LUY Sochea, who used to go to the rented room of the accused, they made the same statement, that they had never seen the pornographic pictures in the room of the accused. In addition, according to the outcomes of the assessment of the exhibit of one 21-inch silver Apple computer and one Nikon Digital Camera, it was suspected that he was involved in the offense of [producing] pornographic pictures and materials of the children and it is was revealed that it contained many pictures but it did not contain pornographic pictures related to the children. Among the confiscated 167 disks, only 3 disks contained pornographic pictures, most of them containing pornographic pictures of adults; so apart from those, they were the pornographic pictures of children as mentioned in document No. 18/13, which the accused copied from an email to look at on his own; while the other disks were simple disks only. The pornographic pictures in film were pictures of the accused and his family taken as memories;
- Based on the above opinion and the activities of the accused, the accused simply copied the pornographic pictures of the children that his friend sent him via an email to see and the pornographic pictures of this family taken as memories. Thus, the accused did not intentionally produce pornographic pictures, distribute, sell, rent, display, play or show the pornographic pictures and materials of the children in public places;
- The acts committed by the accused could not be determined as offenses specified as punishable in accordance with Article 41 of the Law on Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation;
- The are insufficient elements of offenses to charge C CORNELIS MARINUS JOSEPH, male, 65 years old, Dutch citizen, Director of the Supporting Center School, born in the Netherlands, currently living in village 03, Quarter No. 01, Preah Sihanouk municipality, Preah Sihanouk province, spouse of Mrs.——–, with whom he has two children, son of Mr. ——— “deceased” and Mrs.———- “deceased”, with no criminal record, was accused [of producing] pornographic pictures and child-related materials, committed in village 03, Quarter No. 01, Preah Sihanouk municipality, Preah Sihanouk province, on April 2010 in accordance with the provisions of Article 41 of the Law on the Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation. The court should acquit him of the accusation;
4- According to the responses of the witness, named SUON Sophan, Vice-Chief of the Office of Anti-Human Trafficking, he stated that the fact that the Office of Anti-Human Trafficking of Preah Sihanouk Province concluded that the suspect committed the [offence of] purchasing children [for the purposes of] prostitution based on the responses of the male children, CHHIT Narong and YIM Rithy, who responded that after the accused played with their penises, he gave him 500 riels. However, according to the responses of the male child YIM Rithy, he stated that TAKES never played with his penis and he never allowed him to play with his penis either. He gave him 10 dollars or 20 dollars to purchase clothes and gave it to his mother. According to the responses of the child, CHHIT Narong, who responded before the Investigating Judge that the 500 riels given by TAKES was money he won at dice, not the money TAKES gave him for playing with his penis. These responses were consistent with the responses of the accused, that he never used money or other things to attract the children or purchased anything for the children to arouse his feelings, and was consistent with the responses of all the witnesses who responded similarly, that the accused is a good person who always gave money to the children. Both the teachers and students in the Supporting Center School loved and like him;
- The above responses indicate that there was no purchase of the male child YIM Rithy [for the purposes] of prostitution because the act of the purchase of [the child for] prostitution could not occur unless there was a prior act of prostitution. In this case, there were none of the components of an act of prostitution occurring against the male child victim, YIM Rithy, since he clearly stated that the accused never played with his penis and he never allowed him to play with his penis either; moreover, the accused gave money to the children when they won games such as dice and he gave him 500 riels. It did not mean that the accused had malicious intent as the exchange of [money for] playing with the penis of the male child CHHIT Narong, but it was the generosity of the accused, which he always did to every child in the Supporting Center School;
- The act the accused committed could not be determined as an offense specified as punishable in accordance with Article 38 of the Law on the Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation;
- Insufficient elements of offense to charge C CORNELIS MARINUS JOSEPH, male, 65 years old, Dutch citizen, Director of Supporting Center School, born in the Netherlands, currently living in village 03, quarter No. 01, Preah Sihanouk municipality, Preah Sihanouk province, spouse of Mrs. ——–, with whom he has two children, son of Mr. ——— “deceased” and Mrs. ——— “deceased”, with no record of any offense committed, was accused of purchasing children [for the purposes of] prostitution, committed in village 03, Quarter No. 01, Preah Sihanouk municipality, Preah Sihanouk province, on April 2010, in accordance with the provisions of Article 34 of the Law on the Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation. The court should acquit him of the accusation;
5- Although the male child victims, YIM Rithy and SAR Bona Sakhan as well as the witnesses who are students at Supporting Center School responded the same, that TAKES had never played with their penises and he never allowed them to play with his penis and never saw TAKES play with the penises of other children or allowed those children to play with his penis either. They never saw TAKES play with A Rong’s penis or him playing with TAKES’s penis either. However, according to the responses of the male child, CHHIT Narong, he responded the same, both before the Judicial Police and the Investigating Judge, that while he was sitting on TAKES’s thigh, he put his hand into his trousers and touched his penis and then he squeezed his thigh and he had done this to him two or three times. Actually, the victim CHHIT Narong is just 11 years old and based on psychology, if the accused did not play with his penis, he definitely did not respond the same, that the accused had played his penis.
- The same responses of the child CHHIT Narong, reveal that the accused truly committed the offense specified as punishable in accordance with Article 83 of the Law on Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation;
- There were sufficient elements of the offense in order to charge C CORNELIS MARINUS JOSEPH, male, 65 years old, Dutch citizen, Director of Supporting Center School, born in the Netherlands, currently living in village 03, Quarter No. 01, Preah Sihanouk municipality, Preah Sihanouk province, spouse of Mrs. ———-, with whom he has two children, son of Mr. ——– “deceased” and Mrs. ——– “deceased”, with no record of any offense committed, was accused of pornographic acts against minors under the age of 15, committed in village 03, quarter No. 01, Preah Sihanouk municipality, Preah Sihanouk province, on April 2010 in accordance with the provisions of Article 43 of the Law on the Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation. The court should send him for a hearing;
- In order to ensure that the accused C CORNELIS MARINUS JOSEPH appear before the Judge at the Hearing, the Court of the First Instance should decide to temporarily detain the accused based on the provisions of Article 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedures;
It is therefore hereby decided:
1- To acquit C CORNELIS MARINUS JOSEPH (with the above background) of [producing] pornographic pictures and materials of children and purchasing children [for the purposes of] prostitution, committed in village 03, quarter No. 01, Preah Sihanouk municipality, Preah Sihanouk province, on April 2010 of the criminal offenses to be punishable in accordance with the provisions of Articles 41 and 34 of the Law on the Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation;
2- To send the accused, named C CORNELIS MARINUS JOSEPH, and criminal case file No. 135, dated April 22, 2010 as well as the exhibits and roster of the persons relevant to this case to Preah Sihanouk Provincial Court of the First Instance for trial in accordance with the Law on Pornography of Minors under the age of 15 years old, committed in village 03, quarter No. 01, Preah Sihanouk municipality, Preah Sihanouk province, on April 2010, the criminal offenses to be punishable in accordance with the provisions of Article 43 of the Law on the Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation;
3- To temporarily detain the accused, named C CORNELIS MARINUS JOSEPH.
Preah Sihanouk Province, January 6, 2011
Informed and approved
January 6, 2011
No. 09 Gk.11
Prosecutor
(Signature and stamp)
BOU BUNHANG
Investigating Judge
(Signature and stamp)
SAR LINNA
KINGDOM OF CAMBODIA
Nation Religion King
*********
(Logo)
Preah Sihanouk Provincial Court of First Instance
No. 129 tB/11
Release Order
I, the undersigned, LY Sokha, Judge at the Hearing of Preah Sihanouk Provincial Court of the First Instance;
Pursuant to:
- Judgment No. 07 “c”, dated February 21, 2011 of Preah Sihanouk Provincial Court of First Instance, ruling:
- To sentence the accused, named C CORNELIS MARINUS JOSEPH, male, 65 years old, Dutch citizen, to 18 (eighteen) months in prison. This sentence shall be enforced in prison for 10 (ten) months and the remaining sentence shall be completely suspended, for [acts of] pornography against minors under the age of 15 years old, committed in village 3, quarter No. 1, Preah Sihanouk municipality, Preah Sihanouk province, on April 2010, the offense to be punishable in accordance with the provisions of Article 43 of the Law on the Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation. The accused finished the sentence of imprisonment on February 22, 2011;
- Approval remarks dated February 21, 2011 of the Prosecutor to Preah Sihanouk Provincial Court of First Instance;
To order the Chief of Preah Sihanouk Provincial Prison to immediately release C CORNELIS MARINUS JOSEPH, male, 65 years old, Dutch citizen, donor of Supporting School, residing before detention in village 03, quarter No. 1, Preah Sihanouk municipality, Preah Sihanouk province, detained in accordance with Order No. 244 tB.10, dated April 22, 2010, and further detained according to Order No. 774 tB.10, dated October 15, 2010, should this person not be detained for other offenses.
Seen and enforced
Preah Sihanouk Province, February 22, 2011
Chief of Provincial Prison
(Signature and stamp)
PICH VEASNA
Preah Sihanouk Province, February 22, 2011
Judge at the Hearing
(Signature and stamp)
LY SOKHA
KINGDOM OF CAMBODIA
Nation Religion King
*********
Ministry of Interior
General Department of Prison
Preah Sihanouk Provincial Prison
No. 031 dl>Bt>xsn.11
Release Certificate
To enforce the Release Order No. 129 t>B> 11, dated February 22, 2011, of …………………………………………;
I, the undersigned, issue this release certificate of the following person:
Family and given names: C CORNELIS KARINUS JOSEPH, nickname: ………………………………………………….;
Sex: male, Date of birth: 1945, Origin: Dutch citizen, Nationality: Dutch citizen, religion: Christian;
Place of birth: the Netherlands;
Address before arrest: Village 1, quarter No. 1, Preah Sihanouk municipality/province;
Charged of committing pornography against minors under the age of 15 years old;
Arrested on April 10, 2010, has been sentenced to 10 months in prison and he has already served his sentence;
Offense reduced or amnesty granted: expiration of punishment, total:………… years;
To live in village 1, quarter No. 1, Preah Sihanouk municipality, Preah Sihanouk province;
In order to live to earn a livelihood for his family in his community.
Inspection during the correction period
Activities in the prison
- Respect of internal regulations: Excellent;
- Respect of discipline: Good;
- Correction: Good;
- Personal morality: good;
The person concerned shall present this release certificate to the territorial authorities or the Chief of Administrative Police Station located in his locality within a period of three days at the latest.
February 22, 2011 Preah Sihanouk Province, February 22, 2011
Receiver
(Thumbprint)
SOK SIPICH
Right thumbprint of the person concerned
(Thumbprint)
C
Chief of Provincial Prison
(Signature and stamp)
PICH VEASNA