The security forces ordered the villagers to vacate their land. Families were not permitted to remove possessions from their houses. Violent clashes ensued between the police, the police fired live ammunition at the ground and into the air, while the villagers defended themselves with knives, bottles and barbed wire barrier.
- The security forces ordered the villagers to vacate their land. Families were not permitted to remove possessions from their houses. Violent clashes ensued between the police, the police fired live ammunition at the ground and into the air, while the villagers defended themselves with knives, bottles and barbed wire barrier.
- 20 April 07- Some 150 security forces comprised of the Royal Cambodian Armed Forces, military police and civilian police officers armed with guns, electric batons and tear gas entered Pram Muoy Village at Commune 4, Mittapheap District, Sihanoukville Municipality.
- 13 men and one minor were arrested and taken to prison, where they were reportedly beaten by members of the security forces. All 14 defendants were initially charged with "battery with injury" (Article 41 UNTAC Law) and "wrongful damage to property" (Article 52 UNTAC Law).
- Since the violent eviction the families have been living along the road next to their land in the tiny tarpaulin shacks .
- The families continue to live along the road without any remedies.
- THE TRIAL: The trial for the detained villagers was held on July 3-4 in Sihanoukville. All 14 defendants were initially charged with "battery with injury" (Article 41 UNTAC Law) and "wrongful damage to property" (Article 52 UNTAC Law).
- There was no examination of the legality of the forced eviction, the destruction of private property and the excessive use of force by the security forces on 20th April 2007.there has been a prevalence of arbitrary forced evictions of the poor living along railway tracks, rivers and under bridges in the Philippines.
- Five defendants were cleared of all charges and acquitted by the court. Seven defendants were sentenced to 75 days in prison based on varying legal grounds. Two defendants were sentenced to 8 months in prison, suspended after 4 months, to be followed by 5-year period of parole.
- More >
