events, will not be tolerated. Most importantly, it is a clear example of the problematic nature of the inclusion of the protection of the “honor and reputation” of institutions in Article 305. Sen San On 22 November 2013, Mr Sen San, a representative of the Cambodian National Rescue Party (“CNRP”), and Mrs. Ouk Sambo, a woman from his village in Kandal Province, were sued by tycoon Try Pheap for defamation. They were charged for their quotes in a Cambodian Human Rights Task Force (“CHRTF”) report that accused Mr. Pheap of illegal logging and widespread land grabbing. 34 The report, released on 20 November 2013, claimed that Mr. Pheap’s companies, on government economic land concessions, had expanded to around 70,000 hectares, displaced at least 1,445 families, facilitated an illegal-logging syndicate and violated Article 49 of the Land Law of 2001.35 Mr. San did not speak to the CHRTF directly, but was reported stating that Mr. Pheap had become rich from his logging businesses and alleging that Mr. Pheap regularly bribed the Prime Minister’s family. Mr. San admitted to saying that Try Pheap’s wealth was due to his logging business and rubber plantations, but maintained that this was done at home. The only physical proof of his words is a tape recording, whose validity Mr. San has disputed. Mrs. Ouk Sambo’s charges were dropped after she denied her accusations against Mr. Pheap and blamed Mr. San, while he was convicted of defamation under Article 305 of the Criminal Code, with a fine of two hundred thousand riel and a compensation of two million riel to Mr. Pheap. Mr. San’s lawyer filed an appeal request on 28 February 2014, but the date of the appeal hearing has yet to be set. If Mr. San is unable to pay the fines, the approximate equivalent of $550 United States dollars, he could face imprisonment under Article 525 of the CCPC. These charges are an example of a powerful Cambodian businessman using the courts to threaten those who speak out against their illegal activities. Mr. Pheap is closely connected to officials from the Ministries of Interior and Agriculture, the military, forestry officials and other concessionaires, including Choeung Sopheap, the owner of the Pheapimex Company and wife of the Cambodian People’s Party (“CPP”) senator and Sukaku Inc owner Lao Meng Khin. These charges and extreme measures taken against Mr. San can be seen as politically motivated; the director of the Cambodian Defenders Project, Sok Sam Oeun, reiterated that neither the company nor the police would have taken such steps if the comments were made by common villagers.36 The interpretation and application of Article 305 by the police, prosecutors and the courts clearly demonstrates that in practice the criminal offense of defamation acts to restrict the right to freedom of expression in a way that is contradictory to the Constitution and to international law. This suppression prevents Khmer citizens exercising their rights to freedom of expression and actively participating in the political, economic, social and cultural life of their country. Conclusion The continuing criminalization of defamation represents a failure by the RGC to give effect in domestic law to the commitments it has made to the international community and the Cambodian 34 May Titthara, ‘Defamation suits follow NGO report,’ Phnom Penh Post (24 November 2013) http://bit.ly/QW8597 Ibid; Article 49 states that an individual can only own a total of 10,000 hectares of ELCs. 36 Ibid. 35 7