Human right-in-cambodia

LAND grabbing IN CAMBODIA

PAÑÑĀSĀSTRA UNIVERSITY OF CAMBODIA

Instructor: Professor

MSS. KANG SAMPHOS PHUONG

MR. KOU PHANNA

MR. CHRY SOVISAL

MSS. KONG PISEY

MSS. SAM SREYCHEA

YEAR 2016; SREY DIM HALL

CONTENT

I. INTRODUCTION

II. LITERATURE REVIEW1. Review of concepts and theories

1) Human Right definition2) Law on land ownership/ land possession 3) Law on demonstration

2. Review of related study

III. CASE STUDY1. Boeung Kak Case2. Borei Keila Case3. Botum Sakor, Koh Kong Case4. Sroyong Village land case5. Chrork Teak village case6. Land Conflict with CIV (Kratie) case7. Krasang Village Land case8. Koh Kong Land Cases

IV. DISCUSSION

V. CONCLUSION

VI. REFERECES

YEAR 2016; SREY DIM HALL

I. INTRODUCTION

(According to www.johnvink.com)The destruction caused by the wars in Cambodia was not only physical. The constant urgency to survive also challenged the very particular and intricate values which built Khmer society over the centuries. Cambodia is far from having recovered the tissue of solidarity which binds a society and which provides protection to the weaker members of its community. The expression of this absence of solidarity is flagrant when it comes to land issues. In 5 years the number of landless has doubled from about 10% to nearly 20%. There are laws regarding land and property, but what is their effectiveness if corruption is to be found at every level of society, and if the most respected laws are the unwritten laws of power?

(According to www.licadho-camdodia.org ) Thousands Demand Justice for Human Rights Day CelebrationsTo celebrate International Human Rights Day (IHRD), about 10,000 people from rural and urban communities participated in 20 marches and events across the country from December 6 to December 10. These were organized by the informal network Friends of December 10th, which includes youth, land communities, associations, farmers, monks, and NGOs. On December 10, groups peacefully marched from various locations in Phnom Penh toward the Ministry of Justice to demand that the government resolve Cambodia’s land conflict epidemic; reform the judicial system and release human rights defenders and activists; raise the minimum wage and respect labor rights; end state-sponsored violence; and respect freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly. This year’s IHRD theme was ‘Justice’.Marching for International Human Right DayTo celebrate International Human Rights Day (IHRD) this year, 600 monks marched alongside land activists, associations, unions, rural and urban residents, and NGOs, on six national roads towards Phnom Penh from December 5 to December 10. This year’s IHRD theme was “Respecting Human Rights Leads to Peace!” For the first time, indigenous communities in Ratanakiri province participated in IHRD by organizing their own march on National Road 7, which began on December 4.

Much of the work we do on strengthening the capacity of civil society overseas involves working with HRDs; those who act to protect the human rights of themselves and others, often risking their own lives and liberty to do so. They are important because of their role in documenting violations and abuses; seeking remedy or redress for victims; advocating social, political and economic changes; and educating others on human rights.

The target beneficiaries of the Project are HRDs who work to prevent and end violations of human rights, including, but not restricted to, extrajudicial and arbitrary killings,

human trafficking, restrictions on freedoms of thought, expression, assembly and association, abuses in the judicial system, systematic discrimination, mass evictions, forced displacement, denial of the rights to economic livelihoods for particular groups, and forced labor.The target audience for dialogue and advocacy is the RGC, who has an obligation to respect, protect and promote human rights; HRDs and CSOs who will be able to continue and strengthen their human rights work; the Cambodian people, to whom the RGC owes guarantees of human rights; and the international community, to exercise influence on the government and support Cambodians in the quest for respect for their human rights.

According to “The report of land and housing rights 2011”. Printed by ADHOC, March 2012.2011 has seen a sharp increase in the number of economic land concessions granted by the Cambodian Government to private companies. Some protected areas have also been expropriated or transferred from state public land to state private property. In 2011, the Royal Government issued 123 Sub-Decrees to grant economic land concessions to private companies, amounting to a total area of 751,882 hectares.Up to 2011, the Royal Government granted economic land concessions amounting to 2,276,349 hectares to 225 companies through the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and through the Sub-Decree on Economic Land Concessions. The number of economic land concessions could be even greater since some ministries also granted economic land concessions, allegedly to improve some sectors such as land concessions for mining (56zones) through the Ministry of Industry, Mines and Energy, and land concessions to develop 22 Special Economic Zones.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

1. Review of theories and concepts

(According to www.ohchr.org) Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible.

Universal human rights are often expressed and guaranteed by law, in the forms of treaties, customary international law, general principles and other sources of international law. International human rights law lays down obligations of Governments to act in certain ways or to refrain from certain acts, in order to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals or groups.

(According to theredddesk.org, the REDD desk)

The objective of the Land Law (2001) is to determine the regime of ownership for immovable properties in the Kingdom of Cambodia for the purpose of guaranteeing the rights of ownership and other rights related to immovable property, according to the provisions of the 1993 Constitution of the Kingdom of Cambodia. The law delegates the authority to manage the cadastral administration of immovable property belonging to the state and the issuance of land titles to the Ministry of Land Management, Urban Planning and Construction (MLMUPC). It defines the rights of ownership according to state or private property and recognizes the right of indigenous peoples to their traditional residential and agricultural lands. Furthermore, it authorizes the granting of land concessions for either social or economic purposes, provided that the relevant authority (in the case of forests either the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries or the Ministry of environment) have issued a legal document prior to the occupation.

Land Ownership

(According to www. Land << The council for the Development of Cambodia(CDC). Html)

The 2001 Land Law states that “No person may be deprived of his ownership, unless it is in the public interest”. An ownership deprivation shall be carried out in accordance with the forms and procedures provided by the law and regulations and after fair just compensation in advance” (Article 5).

・ Any person who, for no less than five (5) years prior to the promulgation of the Law, enjoyed peaceful, uncontested possession of immovable property that can lawfully be privately possessed, has the right to request a definitive title of ownership (Article 30).

・ After the Law comes into force, any new occupant without title to an immovable property shall be considered as an illegal occupant (Article 34).

・ In order to transform into ownership of immovable property, the possession shall be unambiguous, non-violent, notorious to the public, continuous and in good faith (Article 38).

Law on demonstration

(According to Asian Human Rights Commission)1) Article 1: Meeting and gatherings of groups and crowds for staging

demonstrations are acceptable. However, meetings of groups or crowds in public places or on public roads, or demonstration marches that can be detrimental to public tranquility, order or security, are categorically prohibited.

2) Article 2: Marching demonstrations on public roads to express views on any issue may be held under the following conditions:

a. Violence cannot be used and arms or any other dangerous instruments cannot be carried;

b. Public tranquility, order and security cannot be jeopardized;c. Authorities in each commune and ward through which a group of

demonstrations will march shall be informed at least three days beforehand, in writing, the following: the surnames, names, addresses and signatures of three of the demonstration’s organizers; objectives; location; dates; streets; and number of people participating in the demonstration.

If demonstrations are to be held in provincial towns or cities, they should be reported as required in Article 2 (c), in writing, to the authorities there.

2. Review of related studies

Cambodian Center for Human Right(CCHR) (2013) has conduct the research a project which is “Cambodia: Land in Conflict” that is an output of CCHR’s Land ReformProject (“the Project”) and draws an overview of the land conflict affecting Cambodia, from its root causes to the forms it takes and its impact on the population. The Report uses data and case studies gathered by CCHR staff.This report is made possible by the generous support of the European Union and the Interchurch Organization for Development Cooperation (“ICCO”). The contents are the responsibility of CCHR and do not necessarily reflect the view of the European Union or ICCO. CCHR would also like to express its deepest appreciation to all those who participated in the focus group discussions and interviews to provide important information for the completion of the Report. This Report, and all other publications by CCHR, is available online at www.cchrcambodia.org, and also on the award winning Cambodian Human Rights Portal.

III. CASE STUDY

The economic development policy focusing on agro-industrial development is generally considered to be adequate because our country gets benefits from this kind of sector. However, this pattern of agro-industrial development in which large tracts of land are granted to national and foreign private companies, where people are evicted from their land without appropriate compensation, should be reconsidered. This kind of development process provides benefits only to private companies. People affected by economic land concessions do not get any benefits. Another development policy could be considered that is better and more sensible; it would consist of the authorities providing land to families/ small farmers to grow crops. Private companies would have the opportunity to provide a variety of crops and new technologies to farmers in order to increase their production. Whereas currently the companies produce the exports (i.e.,

cash crops). This kind of development would provide farmers, companies and the state with greater, more equally shared benefits. You can see these some cases:

Boeung Kak Case

(According to www.inclusivedevelopment.net/dkl/)IDI is working with local partners in Cambodia and the Boeung Kak Lake community to support their land and housing rights struggle.Until recently, the Boeung Kak settlement consisted of nine villages surrounding the iconic lake in central Phnom Penh, where some 4000 families resided. In February 2007, the Municipality of Phnom Penh granted a 99-year lease to the private developer Shukaku Inc. over a 133-hectare area covering the lake and the nine surrounding villages, illegally stripping residents of their land rights.Shukaku Inc is owned by ruling party Senator Lao Meng Khin, a close associate of Prime Minister Hun Sen and major donor to the Cambodian People’s Party. In December 2010, it was reported that the Chinese firm Erdos Hong Jun Investment Co., Ltd. of Inner Mongolia was forming a joint venture company with Shukaku Inc in order to develop Boeung Kak into a high-end residential, commercial and tourism complex. The Cambodian Government granted permission to re-register the lease agreement in the name of the joint venture, called Shukaku Erdos Hongjun Property Development Co. Ltd.

ConcernsThe lease agreement usurped the land rights of Boeung Kak residents and threatened its estimated 20,000 residents with forced eviction. It also

violated provisions of the Land Law that stipulate that State public property – including lakes, which have inherent public value – cannot be sold or subjected to long-term leases and that lessees must not damage the property or change its public function.In direct contravention of the law, Shukaku began filling the lake with sand in August 2008. The filling of the lake caused serious flooding in the surrounding villages, leading many families to pack up and leave because their homes became uninhabitable. Homes of Boeung Kak’s Village 1 residents submerged in mud by “developer” Shukaku Inc. in November 2010As of April 2014, an estimated 3500 families have been coerced into accepting compensation for a fraction of the market value for their homes and land. This has driven many families into destitution. The Boeung Kak evictions may constitute the largest single forced relocation of Cambodians since the Khmer Rouge evacuated Phnom Penh in 1975.

The People Fight BackBoueng Kak residents have attempted to challenge this unjust development through the courts of Cambodia and by sending complaints to the competent Government authorities, but these complaints were all rejected.Dozens of protests by the residents have been met with threats, arrests and excessive force by the authorities. During one incident that took place on October 28th, when a group of peaceful protesters gathered to seek the intervention of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon who was visiting Cambodia, anti-riot police launched a violent assault on the protesters, beating them to the ground and shocking people with electric batons. One activist, Suong Sophorn, was arrested and viciously beaten, resulting in a severe wound to the head.People rally together in Phnom Penh Cambodia for their land rightsIn February 2011, the community put forward an alternative proposal for in situ resettlement and onsite upgraded housing on 12% of the leased area, which they developed in collaboration with housing rights organizations. They presented their plan to all relevant government agencies. It was rejected.In addition to petitioning the Government, the community also wrote to Erdos Hong Jun Investment Co., Ltd., asking for it to support their onsite housing proposal. The Housing Rights Task Force (HRTF) coalition also wrote to Erdos urging it to be a responsible corporate citizen and support the community’s just demands by incorporating them into its development plan. As of December 2011, Erdos has not responded to the letters. Click here to download the HRTF letter in English and Chinese.

A Human Rights Victory

Within a week after this lending freeze became public knowledge, on August 17th, the Cambodian government issued a sub-decree granting title to the remaining 800 families over 12.44 hectares of residential land in the Boeung Kak area.  By the end of December 2011, more than 500 families had received titles.

This marked a significant and rare human rights victory in Cambodia. Thousands of people who were facing the prospect of forced displacement and impoverishment, for the first time, have formal legal security to their homes and land. Moreover, in a country where powerful people routinely act above the law with impunity, and poor and marginalized people have no access to justice, ordinary Cambodian families were able to access an independent accountability mechanism and obtain a just and meaningful remedy.

Since 2001, people in villages no. 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 have faced eviction. On 4 March 2011, Boeung Kak communities launched a protest in front of the company’s office to demand 15 ha of land for on-site development, but to no avail. On 20 April 2011, villagers convened a protest to present the same demand in front of the Municipality Hall. They demanded that the company stop pumping sand around people’s houses. These were no positive responses from either the company or the City Hall, and the company continued business as usual-continuing pumping sand, which threatened people’s houses.

On 21 April 2011, people’s representatives met with Mr. Kaet Chhe, the Deputy Head of Administration, and several other City Hall’s officials. With no acceptable results, people continued to sit in front of the City Hall. In order to stop people from protesting, the authorities employed hundreds of armed forces to disperse the crowd by using electric wands and shields to beat people. As a result, 4 people fell unconscious and 11 (including 2 men) were arrested and sent to the Police Commissariat. They included: 1) Pol Srey, 2) Ly Mon, 3) Ros Srey Neang, 4) Tep Vorny, 5) Kim Vuthy, 6) Sam Sophan, 7) Chea Dara, 8) Lim Sothearith, 9) Hun Virakyuth, 10) Kong Pheap, and 11) Ang Chariya. Those who were beaten until they fell unconscious were: kim Vannak, Chan Thy, Nget Chorn alias Khun and Raksmey. Following the protests and harsh criticisms by the World Bank and donors, the government decided to grant 12 ha of land to people. However, some of this land still was taken by the company and

government officials. There was no compensation provided for the damages caused by the company.

(According to The Phnom Penh Post, Friday 11 March 2016 by Lay Samean)Seven former Boeung Kak families yesterday accused Phnom Penh Municipal Governor Pa Socheatvong of corruption in a letter delivered to the Anti-Corruption Unit.

The families were among 4,000 forcefully evicted starting in 2007 to make way for a lakeside development project.

While the seven families received compensation, they claimed yesterday that their packages were not proportionate to those of their neighbors.

Duong Chhert said he could not accept the 72 square meters of land offered by City Hall, saying he held 972 square meters prior to his eviction. He added that other families were given 53 per cent of their previous holdings as compensation.

Speaking to reporters yesterday, Hong Sokheng, a representative of the seven families, blamed City Hall. "I want [ACU director] Om Yentieng to find out whether or not the corruption existed, but I think it might have," said Sokheng.

"Corruption is why [Socheatvong] does not solve for us. If he has a real mind to solve it, he would be able to solve it."

City Hall spokesman Long Dimanche said: "I have nothing to reply, but let them file the complaint and the unit receiving the complaint launch an investigation."

Borei Keila Case

The remaining 387 families at Borei Keila who were waiting to receive houses in the 9th and 10th relocation buildings were forcefully evicted when Phan Imex company used the armed forces on 3 January 2012, without notifying people in advance. According to the construct 10 buildings, following on-site development,

to provide accommodation to 1,776 families. The company halted the construction shortly after the completion of the 8th building. The official reason was an excuse that they did not have enough capital, or even that the company was under threat to go bankrupt. Based on this reason, the company submitted a request letter to stop constructing any more buildings; the request was later accepted and approved by the Prime Minister.

The government paid no attention to protests, and the company evicted residents, who were dumped at Tuol Sambo and Phnom Bat, Punhea Leu district (67 families and 181 families respectively) 40 km from Phnom Penh. On the day of eviction, Phnom Penh armed forces used violence by shooting indiscriminately at villagers, and arresting 15 of them, 7 of which were sent to Prey Sar prison, but later released on 17 February 2012. Five-by-twelve meter plots of land were given to families in Phnom Bat, and three-by-six meter plots of land were given to families at Tuol Sambo. No goods or services whatsoever were provided to affected families.

Borei Keila Housing Deal Needs Investigated: Rights Worker(Accoring to 19 January 2012, according to www.voacambodia.com)Nearly 200 families were moved here from the city, following a forced eviction at Borei Keila, a Phnom Penh neighborhood slated for development by the company Phan Imex.Nearly 200 families were moved here from the city, following a forced eviction at Borei Keila, a Phnom Penh neighborhood slated for development by the company Phan Imex.ShareA senior human rights investigator says a land deal with the residents of the Borei Keila community needs to be closely scrutinized before it can be trusted.The development company Phan Imex has said it will house 1,380 families from the neighborhood, but residents say the number of families living in the area before they were evicted reached nearly 1,800.Land titling and ownership in Cambodia is a complex issue, following the forced exodus of cities under the Khmer Rouge and subsequent legislative neglect after people returned.Residents of Borei Keila were forcibly evicted earlier this month, but many say they now have no place to go because Phan Imex failed to provide enough housing for them, despite a deal with the city to do so. Phan Imex was supposed to build 10 buildings to house evicted residents and built eight instead.Phan Imex has said eight buildings are enough to house the number of legal residents from a 2003 survey.

“We need to investigate to avoid such problems from happening,” Am Sam Ath, lead investigator for the rights group Licadho, told “Hello VOA” Wednesday. “There have been no investigations into whether the total number of people are more than 1,300 families, or more than that. And whether eight buildings are enough.”The courts are where such claims and counter-claims should be pursued, not through violence, he said.Hundreds of Borei Keila residents gathered to oppose the Jan. 3 forced eviction, throwing rocks and bottles at riot police.Eight people were arrested. Then, some 30 residents who later gathered at City Hall to protest against the arrests were seized and held at an extra-judicial detention center. Twenty-two of those detainees escaped the center Wednesday.Am Sam Ath said that some people were forced to accept land deals while they were in detention. Others had to agree to cease protesting.The Borei Keila eviction came after a similar move by authorities in the Boeung Kak lake district of the city last year and that of the Dey Krahorm neighborhood residents in 2009.Chhum Ngan, a representative of the neighborhood who was among those to escape the Prey Speu Social Affairs Center Wednesday, told “Hello VOA” later by phone that some people given homes by Phan Imex had never in fact lived Borei Keila but were instead the relatives of a local official.She said she wants her original house back but could not get that from Phan Imex. Relocation sites at Phnom Path or Tuol Sambor will not do, she said.

“We can’t endure living there because there is no business there,” she said. “We have business only in Phnom Penh.”Suy Siphan, the president of Phan Imex, said by phone that some so-called residents of the neighborhood were not residents at all and had been trying to cheat the company.

“Some pretend to cry, some pretend to be mad, but when their backgrounds are searched, they have only come to live there in 2010,” she said. “Some people play tricks. There were cyclo drivers hired to stay in the house for somebody. [Others] put up tents and lived by themselves and they wanted homes too. Some split [houses] into rooms that were to be considered [separate] homes. That’s the problem.”Chhum Ngan disagreed. Phan Imex destroyed the homes, and with them much of the proof of ownership, she said.

Botum Sakor, Koh Kong Case

On 21 January 2011, land conflict erupted between 1,143 families in Thmor Sor and Koh Sdech commune in Kiri Sakor district and Union Development Group Co., LTD (a Chinese business), leading to the forced eviction of people and their displacement to a new relocation site which is about 20 kilometers away. The company was granted an Economic Land Concession by the government on 9 April 2008, but at the time, the people did not know anything about the development project or the concession.

The people were aware of this only when the company came to gradually clear, dismantle, and burn down their houses from the beginning of 2011. The company evicted people, village by village. Though people filed complaints with the local authorities and relevant institutions at national levels on several occasions, there has never been any proper resolution.

Those forcefully evicted people suffered severe harm to their daily lives because the relocation site is very far from the sea, which has made it very difficult for them to work as fisherman-their traditional occupation. The old village was close to the sea with proper infrastructure such as schools and hospitals, while the relocation site is 20 km away. It does not have any schools, hospitals or public infrastructure, and the land is mostly barren.

Sroyong Village land case

One hundred and ninety families of villagers in Sroyong village, Sroyong commune, Kulen district, Preah Vihear province were evicted by the provincial authorities to pave way for 5,557 ha of Social Land Concession granted to 180 families of former soldiers. This was said to comply with the announcement by the Council of Ministers no. 603/25/May 2011, the proposal by the Ministry of Land Management, Urban Planning and

Construction no. 330/6/May 2011, as well as notes by the Prime Minister dated 12 May 2011.

To implement the Social Land Concession plan decided at the national level, the Governor of Kulen district issued an announcement dated 28 June 2011 providing for the confiscating of land from existing residents, alleging that they were living on forest land, and forcing them to dismantle their houses. The Governor promised to propose to the national level to provide some compensation to those villagers. National and provincial level management teams were ready to identify and clear that land for the families of former soldiers, while existing villagers were not included or given any consideration at all. Those who protested or refused to leave their land were arrested.

Chrork Teak village case

In June 2009, a company named HLH started to clear land at Chrork Teak village, Trapeang Cho commune, Oral district, Kampong Speu province, to pave way for growing agro industrial crops, affecting people’s land amounting to an area of 101.77 ha. The document that the company used as a justification to clear people’s land showed that the company had already done the environmental impact assessment for that project in November 2009; however, that assessment did not comply with Sub-Decree 164. Also, the consultation was made with only 26 October 2009. Then there was a consultation with about 313 citizens from 24-31 October 2009. According to the assessment report and the interviews with citizens, the company had started to use land concessions before the social and environmental impact assessment was completed, which goes against the Land Law and Sub-Decree 146, provision 3 and 5.

Land Conflict with CIV (Kratie)

In January 2011, a land conflict exploded between citizens of three villages (Thmar Hal Dey Kraham Village of Pi Tnou commune, Mean Chey village and Krabei Chol Roung of Sre Char commune, Snuol district, Kratie province) and CIV company. The conflict happened when the company used tractors to clear land and destroy the crops of 329 families, affecting 769 ha of land area. This company received an

Economic Land Concession from Kratie provincial hall on 27 May 2008.

While the company was planting the fence posts to prevent people from entering their fields, was clearing land and was planting rubber trees, they used guards to threaten people with fire arms and to prevent them from protesting. As a result, people filed complaints to local authorities in order to seek resolution, but they did not find any solution. They only organized meetings while the company continued to clear the land and to threaten people.

In addition to safeguarding the land, the company filed lawsuits against the people, resulting in the court issuing a warrant ordering people to stop protesting. Mr. Kang Horn, a victim in the land conflict, was arrested and detained following a complaint by the company. His family was then forced to accept the new land allocated by the company, but he refused to company. Not only did they threaten the affected people, but they also threatened human rights defenders, while they were investigating the case.

In the morning of 21 October 2011, one of the company’s AK-47-armed guard named Ron stopped and blocked the way of two ADHOC officials who were measuring the land in question before Snuol district council members, Sre Char commune council members, Mean Chey village chief and another four GPS experts.

Krasang Village Land case

On 7 Deceber 2011, one company Haryson Esgree Co. Ltd, supervisor (named Bo) and 5 armed soldiers, used five bulldozing machines to clear land, affecting 156 families’ rice fields and plantations stretching 547 ha. However, their activities were immediately halted by 150 citizens (including 60 women). During the protest, Bo ordered the soldiers to open fire on protesters, but they refused to do so. Then Heang Phirum, a security guard of CIV company, grabbed the gun from one soldier and

was about to open fire on protesters when the gun was pulled back by the soldier. Mr. Men Vanna, the District Deputy Governor, intervened to stop the company’s activities. In this case, the people filed a complaint to the court. The court summoned victims’ representatives to testify on 17 January 2012.

Koh Kong Land Cases

Mrs. C.R., 63, who is and older victim in the land conflict with Koh Kong Sugar Industry Company Ltd, described the impacts of the conflict on her daily life after the company was granted an Economic Land Concession by the government. She said that before her land was cleared by the company, she grew water melons. Seventy-five days after planting, she could harvest and make about USD 1, 000 from the crops. Moreover, on her 11 ha of land, she could also raise 30 cattle. Now, after the company took away her land with very little compensation (USD 500-600), she has been forced to sell almost all her cattle. In 2007, her last two cows were shot dead. As a consequence of losing 11 ha of land and all the cattle, her standard of living has nosedived. As a result of the loss of their land, the people in the village no longer have any grazing land. They could be forced to pay from USD 12.50 to USD 36.50 riels if their cattle enter the land developed by the company.

As a result of land conflicts, ADHOC has evidence that at least one person was killed. Moreover, 427 people were charged with criminal offences in relation to the exercise of

their right to peaceful protest. Among those, 95 people were arrested. As of today, 48 still remain in prison, while 332 people have escaped to avoid arrest or are currently awaiting judgment.

Among the changed people were 2 officers from ADHOC (Mr. Pen Bunna and Mr. Chhay Thy); Mr. Ratha Visal of Radio Free Asai (RFA) is facing criminal proceedings because he tried to protect the people’s rights and to disseminate information on land rights violations in Rattanakiri province; aMember of Parliament Kandal province had his immunity lifted and was charged with criminal offences along with his lawyer, Mr. Choeung Chou Ngy; 4 Deputy Commune Chiefs (1 from Kandal province, 2 from Kompong Thom province, and 1 from Kompot province) are being detained in prison; 2 Deputy Commune officials (San Sat and Lay Sokkheang), 1 Commune Council member in Battambong and Banteay Mean Chey provinces. The reason for their detention is that they tried to protect people’s interests by using their position to advocate and push for fair resolutions of land disputes.

IV. DISCUSSIONAs you can see many cases of land grabbing in Cambodia have happened which people still protest for decent solution. Most of the time when they have done protest, the authorities usually did not allow because they said it causes the traffic jam or social disorder. You can see the law on demonstration which raised above if they do not use violence and inform to authorities at least three days’ beforehand people can do protest, yet those requests were not accepted most of the time. Moreover, those people were attacked by police. Anyways, even they have meeting or gathering, they usually were broken. If we consider to human right, people have right for living. So they can demand for their right of living when something or someone affect to the livelihood or home. According to article 30 claim that any person who, for no less than five (5) years prior to the promulgation of the Law, enjoyed peaceful, uncontested possession of immovable property that can lawfully be privately possessed, has the right to request a definitive title of ownership. So people should not be evicted by the companies or government with unacceptable compensation.

V. CONCLUSION

In almost all the cases arising from Economic Land Concessions, local authorities have consistently failed to find adequate solutions for the people. Many citizens appealed to the municipal and provincial authorities, as well as the government, to resolve the issue while the companies were clearing their land. As regards conflicts between poor people and private companies in Economic Land Concession cases, the solution is often to force citizens to accept compensation provided by the companies. In some cases, coercion happens through surrounding people’s land, using the state’s armed forces to safeguard the

companies’ clearing activities, and using local authority forces to compel people to thumbprint documents to accept new land or relocation schemes provided by the companies. Also, it was observed that both companies and related local authorities forced citizens to sell their land at a very price, far below mark value. But when citizens did not agree to sell their land, the companies got the relocation sites ready and evicted people, forcing them to move there with very little or no compensation. Those irresponsibility effect to their life such as:

Education: In addition to the poor living conditions resulting from Economic Land Concessions, people are also losing opportunities to send their children to school because they need them at home to take care of their cattle, for fear that the latter wander onto the land claimed by the companies. Furthermore, they require children to look for food to feed the family. In some cases, children cannot go to school anymore because there are no school in the new relocation sites. Teachers sometimes cannot teach as the nearest school is very far from their homes and they cannot afford transportation.

Health: Cambodia people’s health conditions in the countryside or remote areas are below the national average. For example, the child mortality rate in remote provinces like Rattanakiri and Modulkiri is at 16.5%, which is very high as compared to 8.3% at the national level. The loss of income prevents people from using private or quality health care services because the fees are too high. There are also no health centers at the relocation sites. So, if they need health care services, people have to spend time and money to travel to health centers in the nearest towns. These is because they have been sent to remote relocation site, far away from the city center, which do not have clean water and electricity. As at Andong village (Sambok Chap Thmei) People were made to buy water from private ponds at 3,500 Riels per jar and electricity at 3,000 Riels per KWH.

Family livelihood: Impacts on the livelihoods of people affected by Economic Land Concessions are similar to those observed for people affected by forced evictions. Because they lose their rice fields and farm land, which are cleared by the companies, and because they are given instead smaller plots which are barren or not as fertile as their previous land, adequate water sources are lacking, they experience a serious decrease in their land are usually situated very far from the villages and produce very little; thus, people often face food crises. So most of them eventually ended up leaving relocation sites and returning back to Phnom Penh city_ renting a house and managing to earn some minimal income but still living under great hardship.

VI. REFERENCES

According to www.johnvink.comAccording to www.licadho-camdodia.org, LICADHO, December 17, 2015Thousands Demand Justice for Human Rights Day Celebrations

December 15,2014Marching for International Human Right DayAccording to www.ohchr.org, UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS office of the right commissionerAccording to theredddesk.org, the REDD desk Land Law (Cambodia)Date established 20 July, 2001Primary Focal Area Tenure and RightsAccording to www. Land << The council for the Development of Cambodia(CDC). Html ---ownershipAccording to Asian Human Rights Commission, The Law on demonstrations

www.cchrcambodia.org According to www.inclusivedevelopment.net/dkl/According to The Phnom Penh Post, Friday 11 March 2016 by Lay Samean19 January 2012, according to www.voacambodia.comSok KhemaraVOA Khmer