01005674 Case File No. 002/19-09-2007/ECCC/TC E313 2. PRELIMINARY ISSUES 2.1. Jurisdiction 12. Following the signing of the Agreement between the United Nations and the Royal Government of Cambodia on 6 June 2003, the Cambodian parliament adopted the “Law on the Establishment of Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia for the Prosecution of Crimes Committed during the Period of Democratic Kampuchea” which was promulgated in its final version on 22 October 2004.30 According to Article 2(1) of the Agreement and Articles 1 and 2 (new) of the ECCC Law, the ECCC has personal jurisdiction over “senior leaders” of Democratic Kampuchea and those who were “most responsible” for the crimes and serious violations of Cambodian penal law, international humanitarian law and international conventions recognised by Cambodia, committed between 17 April 1975 and 6 January 1979.31 13. The Co-Investigating Judges ruled that they had personal jurisdiction over NUON Chea and KHIEU Samphan, finding that they were senior leaders of Democratic Kampuchea and/or those most responsible for crimes committed between 17 April 1975 and 6 January 1979.32 These findings were not challenged before the Pre-Trial Chamber. 14. KHIEU Samphan nevertheless maintains that the ECCC has no personal jurisdiction over him. He contends that during the Democratic Kampuchea regime he was never a political decision maker, nor did he have effective or operational power 30 Agreement between the United Nations and the Royal Government of Cambodia concerning the Prosecution under Cambodian Law Of Crimes Committed during the Period of Democratic Kampuchea, 6 June 2003 (“ECCC Agreement”), Articles 1, 2; Law on the Establishment of Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia for the Prosecution of Crimes Committed during the Period of Democratic Kampuchea, 10 August 2001 with inclusion of amendments as promulgated on 27 October 2004 (NS/RKM/1004/006) (“ECCC Law”), Article 2. 31 The Supreme Court Chamber has held that the qualification of an Accused as a senior leader or a person most responsible is primarily a matter of prosecutorial and investigative policy within the sole discretion of the Co-Prosecutors and Co-Investigating Judges. As such, it is not justiciable before the Trial Chamber unless an abuse of discretion is alleged. Whether or not an Accused is a Khmer Rouge official, however, is a jurisdictional requirement justiciable before the Trial Chamber (KAING Guek Eav Appeal Judgement, paras 79-80). 32 Closing Order, paras 1327-1328. Case 002/01, Judgement, 7 August 2014 - Public 7