This content discusses domestic violence.
The audio recordings above share two women’s real experiences of seeking justice and safety from domestic violence. The women’s testimonies are read by LICADHO staff to protect the women’s identities. Their testimonies have been edited for length and clarity, and to remove identifying details. For more information, see methods below.
***
The Cambodian government’s endorsement of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in domestic violence cases – without ensuring access to courts and support services – is putting women’s and children’s lives at risk. Despite this, the government has now further entrenched this approach in a new Royal Decree.
Reconciliation, a form of ADR in which couples are encouraged to stay together at all costs, has long been the first response to domestic violence by many Cambodian authorities. Even if courts or local authorities do eventually oversee a divorce, accountability for perpetrators and access to protection orders, administrative decisions and other services are lacking. As a result, women and their children often remain at risk of further violence.
Bopha and Sothy,* whose stories are shared above, are among these women. During this year’s 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence, LICADHO stands with them in demanding justice and safety.
***
Reconciliation often traps women in unsafe relationships and fails to end violence. “Instead, it gave rise to even more issues,” said Bopha, who was pressured to reconcile with her abusive husband. “After the conciliation, it didn’t feel safe.”
A 2020 study found that 80% of surveyed women who had experienced domestic violence in Cambodia reported negative experiences with ADR. Authorities often pressure women to reconcile with abusers, even when women are seeking to file a complaint or separate due to repeated or severe violence.
“Initially, I believed that he would change, thinking that at the police station, he would be scared of the police chief, and that he would return home and stop hurting me,” said Sothy. “But no. He was the same.” In some cases, reconciliation efforts have preceded men murdering women.
During reconciliation, authorities often interject their own personal opinions – rife with gender stereotypes and victim-blaming – to advise both parties. Couples are often sent home with a written agreement to change their behaviour, at times implying that women are equally at fault for violence. When Sothy sought help, the village chief told her: “All we can say is that it’s your karma. In this life, you always suffer.”
Children’s best interests are similarly disregarded or misunderstood by authorities, who often claim that it is best for children to be raised in a traditional family structure. Authorities will therefore pressure women to be tolerant of abuse, and regularly fail to acknowledge the harms suffered by children who experience or witness violence.
“If I lived with him, it would be more difficult for my children because their emotional and mental health would not be stable, since their parents would fight and argue every day,” said Bopha.
***
Despite the dangers of reconciliation, the Cambodian government further codified the use of ADR by approving the Royal Decree on the Establishment, Organisation and Process of the National Authority for Alternative Dispute Resolution on 2 November 2023.
In theory, mediation and reconciliation are different practices. Mediation should involve a neutral third party who facilitates an agreement that both sides are satisfied with. Unlike reconciliation, the aim of mediation is not necessarily that the couple stays together. In reality, the terms samroh samruol and phsah phsa are used interchangeably to refer to mediation, conciliation or reconciliation. The terms are not defined in Cambodian law, and there is limited academic or professional consensus about their precise meaning or what they should entail.
The Royal Decree establishes a framework for a new mechanism authorised to conduct ADR – including samroh samruol and phsah phsa – with the objectives of reducing courts’ case backlogs and ensuring harmony in society. Rather than defining or limiting these practices, the Royal Decree conflates them further by using the terms adjacently. This conflation leaves the door open to reconciliation.
The Royal Decree permits these practices in civil cases, but prohibits them in criminal matters unless otherwise permitted by law. This solidifies rather than resolves the problematic use of ADR for some criminal domestic violence cases, due to Cambodia’s flawed 2007 Law on Prevention of Domestic Violence and Protection of Victims (“the Domestic Violence Law”).
The Domestic Violence Law permits mediation and reconciliation in response to criminal cases involving “minor” misdemeanours, petty offences, and acts of psychological or economic violence. Misdemeanours under Cambodia’s Criminal Code include offences such as intentional violence (Articles 217 and 222), death threats (Article 233) and unlawful confinement (Article 253).
Yet, the classification of “minor misdemeanours” is not defined in Cambodian law. Several petty offences under the Criminal Code are also vaguely defined, such as less severe acts of violence without injury (Article 228) or minor damage to property (Article 418). Substantial discretion is therefore left to authorities when deciding which domestic violence cases – including those involving criminal acts – can be settled through ADR.
Furthermore, the new Royal Decree gives agreements reached through ADR the same legal weight as binding, enforceable court orders. The prospect of legally binding agreements for reconciliation is fraught with concerns for the liberty and safety of those experiencing domestic violence.
The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women recommended in 2019 that Cambodia review and amend the Domestic Violence Law. For years, local civil society has pressed for the law to be amended to criminalise all acts of domestic violence and to remove provisions that allow or encourage reconciliation as a response. A comprehensive review and amendment of Cambodia’s legal framework, including the Domestic Violence Law, is now more urgent than ever.
***
Given the persistence of ADR in Cambodia, some government and development actors have tried to improve these processes by limiting and restricting their use. Yet, this risks further entrenching harmful approaches by giving them the appearance of legitimacy.
Guidelines on the Limited Use of Mediation as a Response to Violence Against Women were recently published by the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Interior and Ministry of Women’s Affairs, with the support of development actors such as UN Women and the Australian government. The guidelines seek to limit ADR to mediation rather than reconciliation, and ensure that mediation is only done in response to civil cases and criminal petty offences, rather than misdemeanours.
Yet, the guidelines’ inclusion of petty offences risks the continuation of criminal domestic violence cases being inappropriately settled out of court. Additionally, the likelihood that the guidelines are properly implemented is slim: reconciliation is already the status quo and the Royal Decree further conflates mediation and conciliation, signalling that the government has little intent to distinguish between them in practice.
Even if it did, a recent project evaluation concerning Australia’s support for the guidelines concluded that “mediation is not survivor centred, does not treat violence as a criminal offence and it is inconsistent with international guidance”. Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) responded that it agrees, and will not be supporting mediation in Cambodia going forward.
***
The Cambodian government must urgently and comprehensively overhaul the legal framework – especially the Domestic Violence Law – to criminalise all acts of domestic violence and prohibit ADR in response to any criminal act of domestic violence. Women who have experienced violence deserve and need access to court systems, protection orders and other services. “I want the police to come and arrest the person immediately, do their work fast,” said Sothy.
The Cambodian government and development actors must end their support for all ADR practices as a response to criminal domestic violence. They must instead redirect their efforts to create more accessible and effective courts, and train authorities to use and enforce protection orders and administrative decisions. They should strengthen prevention programmes, establish specialised courts such as family courts, and ensure better access to legal representation, safe shelters, financial aid, counselling, and other services.
“Don’t think that mediation will always work,” said Bopha. “Sometimes, like in my case, it doesn’t work, but makes our lives more dangerous.”
* Names have been changed
Methods
Bopha and Sothy first received services from LICADHO after experiencing domestic violence. They later agreed to participate in interviews for public advocacy on the condition of anonymity due to the ongoing risk of violence.
During these interviews, LICADHO staff encouraged each woman to tell their story in their own words. LICADHO staff explained that they did not have to discuss their experiences of violence, but that they could if they chose.
LICADHO audio-recorded and transcribed each interview. Transcripts were edited to group themes together as well as for length, clarity and privacy. Care was taken to maintain each woman’s own words and original meaning in the edited transcripts. LICADHO read the edited transcripts to each woman, and invited them to share edits, comments or concerns.
After being verified and approved by each woman, the transcripts were read and presented by LICADHO staff in the audio recordings above. LICADHO shared the final audio recordings with each woman before publication for further comments, verification and approval.
We thank both women for their courage, and their fight for a future in which women can speak out and live free from violence.
Artworks by Penkuro