Destruction of Evidence The Telecoms Law includes specific powers for the destruction of evidence that could preclude a fair trial for any individual charged under this law. This procedure is an outrage to fair trial rights, and dispatches with any notional respect for the burden of proof and the rule of law within the Cambodian criminal justice system. The destruction of evidence could amount to a state-sanctioned crime and could prevent any individual charged under this law from mounting a complete defence.  Article 76 creates a procedure whereby telecommunications inspection officials can apply to the prosecutor for the right to destroy evidence “in line with applicable procedures”, should it be declared a “prohibited or dangerous product.” 20 It is unclear what would amount to applicable procedures – pre-existing and extremely limited Criminal Procedure Code provisions ban the destruction of evidence, only permitting the disposal of dangerous or unlawfully held items in circumstances where they are not required as evidence – these are not referenced by the Telecoms Law. Protections relating to the relevance of exhibits do not exist within the Telecoms Law itself. The Criminal Procedure Code does not accommodate a role for policing officials to request the prosecutor to destroy evidence and precludes the prosecutor from disposing of items during a judicial investigation or trial. Conversely, the Telecoms Law appears to create competence to carry out exactly such acts. Application to the prosecutor in this manner both conflicts with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and suggests that relevant evidence could be destroyed at a pre-trial stage. Further, the definition of dangerous and unlawful items under the Criminal Procedure Code is strictly limited, another feature absent from the Telecoms Law. There are no safeguards in the Telecoms Law, leaving this provision extremely open to abuse. 21  As noted, these powers could be used to prevent a complete defence through the destruction of exculpatory evidence. Additionally, handing prosecutors powers to destroy the very evidence they are legally obliged to present to satisfy the burden of proof, in accordance with the constitutional presumption of innocence of the defendant, demonstrates the authorities’ lack of commitment to the rule of law and genuine justice. This article simply increases the potential for the courts to be used as a political tool against free expression, association and democratic activism. Under the Criminal Code, destruction of evidence is an offence in its own right. 22 Without safeguards, this provision is simply state-sanctioned impunity for a criminal offence in order to subvert the criminal justice system.  The law also permits the authorities to pass the financial cost of the destruction of evidence on to the accused. In addition to jeopardizing fair trial rights, the destruction of evidence belonging to an individual is arguably a violation of the right to property, particularly where an accused party is subsequently exonerated and the items cannot be considered dangerous or unlawfully held. 20 Telecoms Law Article 76 Code of Criminal Procedure Article 119 permits the prosecutor to dispose of dangerous or unlawfully held items only where such items are not required as evidence. The definition of “dangerous” under this article establishes an objectively high threshold through reference to weapons or explosives capable of harming persons or property. This article also prevents the disposal of items by a prosecutor during a judicial investigation or trial proceedings and contains an appeal procedure against decisions to dispose of items; Article 161 permits the disposal of items at a pre-trial stage, only by the investigating judge and only if they are dangerous and unlawfully held - disposal is only permitted where it does not impact “ascertaining of the truth” by the court – precluding the destruction of relevant evidence; Article 354 vests power to dispose of dangerous or unlawfully held items considered as evidence with the court as part of the judgement at the conclusion of a trial. 22 Criminal Code Article 533;534 21 Page 4 of 7