Comments of the Kingdom of Thailand on the reply given by the Kingdom of Cambodia to the question put to both Parties by Judge Cançado Trindade

No. 35001/ R~c Royal Thaï Embassy
The Hague

14 June B.E. 2554 (2011)

Sir,

I have the honour to refer to the Request for Interpretationof the Judgement of

15 June 1962 in the Case conceming the Temple ofPreah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand),
and to your letter dated 7 June 2011, acknowledging receiptof my letter dated 7 June 2011
communicating to the Comi the text of the written reply of the Govemment of the

Kingdom of Thailand to the question put to the Kingdom of Thailand and the Kingdom of
Cambodia by Judge Cançado Trindade at the end of the public sitting held on 31 May
2011, and transmitting a copy of the Agent of the Kingdom of Cambodia's letter dated 6
June 2011 communicating to the Co mi the text of the written reply of the Government of

the Kingdom of Cambodia to the aforementioned question.
In this connection,1have the further honour to make a general observation that
certain information provided in Cambodia's reply is either of no relevance to the present
proceedings or relates to incidents that occurred before 22 April and therefore falls outside

the scope ofthe questions posed by Judge Cançado Trindade.
I also have the honour to make the following comments on specifie aspectsof
the written reply ofthe Government of the Kingdom ofCambodia:
1. With regard to the villages of Sra Em, Svay Chrum and Samdech Techo Hun

Sen (See Attachment)
1.1 The only incident outside the Ta Muen and Ta Kwai Temples area
occurred after 22 April 2011 at Phu Makhua on 26 April 2011. This incident was a minor
one, resulting from a misunderstanding. It lasted a mere twenty minutes and was quickly

resolved by the local commanders of both sides. In any case, there can be no connection
whatsoever between the evacuation of the three villages referred to in Cambodia's written
reply (i.e.Sra Em, Svay Chrum and Samdech Techo Hun Sen) and the 26 April incident
especially as Cambodia herself acknowledges in her written reply that such evacuation took

place as early as 22 April 2011, or even before, (i.e. at !east 4 days before the incident).
Therefore, the evacuation of these villagers cannot be the consequence of the incidents that
took place from 22 April 2011 as asked by Judge Cançado Trindade.
1.2 Cambodia's written reply did not specify -vvhenexactly the evacuation

of the three villages began, nor the reason for the evacuation. Cambodia herself admits in
her written reply that the "origins" of the displacement could be incidents that occurred
prior to 22 April. This, together with the fact thato incident occurred anywhere within

150 kilometres of the Temple of Phra Viharn since 7 February 2011, apart from the minor
26 April incident mentioned above, leads to the only plausible conclusion that unless the
latter incident could somehow be predicted by the Cambodian authorities, the alleged
evacuation of the three villages was in fact undertaken as a result of the incidents that

occurred during February 2011. Such an evacuation manifestly tàlls outside the scope of

Mr. Philippe Couvreur
Registrar,

International Court of Justice,
THE HAGUE.the question put forward by Judge Cançado Trindade, who asks for the number of local

inhabitants who were displaced as a result of the incidents occurring since 22 April 2011.
1.3 Cambodia's written reply indicating when the three villages were
established is an admission that the aforementioned villagers have not been living in these

three villages for a long time. This confirms the point made by Thailand during the public
sitting on 31 May 2011 that civilians and villagers were put in the region only recently to
serve political motives that are entirely outside the scope of the current proceedings.
1.4 Regarding Cambodia's statement that "the persans working in the

markets immediately close to the Temple which was destroyed by the clashes could not
resume their activities", attention should be drawn to the tàct that the market was destroyed
as a consequence of incidents that occurred in April 2009, and thus falls outside the scope
of the question.

2. With regard to the province of Ouddor Meanchey
Cambodia's reference to 52,421 hectares of land that have been
contaminated by "Unexploded Ordnances" (UXOs) is of no relevance to the question
raised, nor is it relevant to the present proceedings.t is the understanding of Thailand that

any UXO contaminated area found in Cambodia is indeed the result of past conflicts in
Cambodia that lasted until 1998.
3. With regard to the Annexes attached to Cambodia's written reply
The credibilityof the photographs annexed to Cambodia's written reply is

seriously in doubt, since no infonnation is provided on the exact dates and locations where
they were taken.
Accept, Sir, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.

(Virachai Plasai)

Ambassador
Agent of the Kingdom of Thailand ATTACHf!ltNT

International Boundary Representation
must not be considered authoritative

- ·-·- ····- International Boundary

- • - FirstMorder administrative Boundary
• Distance from Ban Svay Chrum to Phra Viharn Temple,Phu Mai<Ua

(in straighlin e= 5,8 km.
Distance from Ban Sra Am to Phra Viharn Temple,Phu Makua
(in straighline)= 16.5,18.5km.
• Distance from Ban Sam Dech Deso Hun sen to Phra Viharn Temple,Phu Makua
(in straighline)= 13.5,14.5km.

vP\.