A/HRC/15/46 Dismissals”. These two articles were used by the Phnom Penh Municipal Court and by the Appeal Court as evidence to find him guilty of disinformation and give him a one-year prison sentence even though his articles posed no threat to law and order or national security of the country. 36. What is also intriguing is that while handling the case both of the Courts failed to apply the Press Law, which would require the affected party from the publication to seek a retraction by Mr. Hang Chakra, or a right to response. Immediately after being convicted by the Phnom Penh Municipal Court, Mr. Hang Chakra was arrested in Battambang province from which he was sent to Correctional Centre 1 (CC1). He appealed the judgment to the Appeal Court, but the latter upheld the court ruling. Mr. Hang Chakra did not appeal the verdict of the Appeal Court to the Supreme Court, believing that it would be futile. During his mission in January 2010 the Special Rapporteur visited him in prison. He was eventually granted a royal pardon by the King in April 2010 and released. 37. The verdict of the Courts focused on how the article was written in bad faith and the information was incorrect. The courts did not give any legal reasoning as to why or how the article published by Mr. Hang Chakra could disturb public peace, a necessary element of the offence of disinformation under article 62 of the UNTAC Criminal Provisions. It was intriguing that the prosecutors did not investigate the case but sent the matter directly to trial judges. Nor did the investigating judge get involved in the investigation of the case. The articles were published in April and May 2009 and Mr. Hang Chakra was convicted in June, a very speedy conviction by any standards. This gave rise to suspicion that the judiciary was intent on convicting and punishing Mr. Hang Chakra. 38. The trial was very swift and Mr. Hang Chakra’s lawyer did not have time to prepare the case. He asked the judge to delay the trial, but his request was rejected. Neither Mr. Hang Chakra nor his lawyer had the opportunity to submit arguments in defense. The trial took about one hour and Mr. Hang Chakra was found guilty in absentia. After his arrest, his lawyer appealed to the Appeal Court. The lawyer had a strong argument to make, that this was not a criminal but a civil matter since Mr. Hang Chakra’s articles had not caused any unrest or posed any threat to national security, but the judges of the Court of Appeal did not allow him to submit his arguments. The judges focused their attention on making Mr. Hang Chakra admit the charges rather than enter into the merits of the case. 39. The Special Rapporteur is aware that there have been some positive developments in some cases in the recent past with regard to the interpretation of the law on disinformation. One such example is the verdict of the Takeo Provincial Court to acquit two human rights defenders, Cheab Chiev and Khoem Sarum, a Radio Free Asia journalist, Sok Serey and Cham Community representatives Ny San and Seb Sein on charges of disinformation. Charges had been brought against these five individuals following an interview on Radio Free Asia broadcast in December 2008 during which they alleged corruption on the part of the local officials in Kampong Youl village in Takeo Province. They were charged in September 2009 with, inter alia, disinformation under the UNTAC criminal provisions. The crime requires both an element of malicious intent and evidence that the information that has been publicized would be “disturbing or likely to disturb the public peace”. In deciding to drop the disinformation charges, the Takeo Provincial Court specifically stated that there had been a lack of malicious intent on the part of the accused. This was a welcome development and the Special Rapporteur hopes that other courts will follow suit in future defamation and disinformation cases by entering into the merits of the case and provide legal reasoning for their judgment. However, the Special Rapporteur also hopes that the subsequent appeal by the Prosecutor in this case will not lead to the reversal of the verdict. 10