The July 31st 2008 'contract' Citipointe induced Chanti to sign not a legal document according to ‘Anti Human Trafficking and Juvenile Protection Department’

Leigh Ramsay

322 Wecker Road

Carindale

QLD 4152

10^th May 2013

Dear Leigh

Following on from my letters to you of 4^th and 7^th May.

In my interview with the police at the ‘Anti Human Trafficking and Juvenile Protection Department’ yesterday,  two facts emerged:

(1) The 31^st July 2008 document that Citipoiinte induced Chanti and her mother to apply their thumb prints to is not a legal document. This is not beyond dispute. And yet it is this document that Citipointe presented to both Chanti and myself as evidence that the church was acting legally when, in August 2008, we were informed that Citipointe would retain custody of Rosa and Chita until they were 18. This was a lie. In July and August 2008 Citipointe used deception  to unlawfully remove Rosa and Chita from their parents’ care.

Cambodia’s ‘Law on Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation’ is very clear on this point:

Article 8:Definition of Unlawful Removal

The act of unlawful removal in this act shall mean to:

1)      Remove a person from his/her current place of residence to a place under the actor’s or a third persons control by means of force, threat, deception, abuse of power or enticement, or

2)      Without legal authority or any other legal justification to do so to take a minor person under general custody or curatoship or legal custody away from the legal custody of the parents, care taker or guardian.

Article 9: Unlawful removal, inter alia, of Minor

A person who unlawfully removes a minor or a person under general custody or curatorship or legal custody shall be punished with imprisonment for 2 to 5 years.

On the basis of the 31^st July 2008 fraudulent document alone and on the way in which Citipointe used it to manipulate Chanti into believing that she had signed away the rights to her children until they were 18 Citipointe should, I believe, be charged with ‘human trafficking’.

The police also need to ask of LICADHO what role the NGO played in inducing Chanti to sign this fraudulent document? Chanti believed at the time that she was entering into an agreement with LICADHO and that there was a LICADHO representative present on 31^st July. Was LICADHO complicit in the illegal removal of Rosa and Chita? Or is Chanti mistaken in believing that there was a LICADHO representative present? LICADHO, like Citipointe, refuses to answer any questions – the NGO not applying the same principles of transparency and accountability it expects of the Cambodian government!

(2) When I asked the interviewing policeman if the  ‘Anti Human Trafficking and Juvenile Protection Department’ had on file a copy of the agreement Citipointe insists the church had entered into with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in mid 2008, he searched his (rather fat) file in vain for such a document. Citipointe has not provided it or, it seems, any document proving that the church was acting legally in 2008 wen the church removed Rosa and Chita and ignored the many requests made by their parents for the girls return to the family home.

So, the state of affairs as I see it is very clear. Citipointe broke Cambodian law by inducing Chanti and her mother to sign the 31^st July 2008 sham contract and, in August 2008, when the church was telling Chanti that Rosa and Chita would stay with the church until they were 18, Citipointe was, yet again, breaking Cambodian law. On two counts Citipointe should be charged with human trafficking and, if found guilty, be forced to pay compensation to the family for the pain and suffering your church has caused.

Quite separate from the legal questions surrounding Citipointe’s removal of Rosa and Chita from the care of their family is the question of why it is, in April 2013, close to five years later, the church still retains custody of the girls? Their family owns their own home in Prey Veng where the girls have one extended family living in their village and another living 20 minutes away. Rosa and Chita’s father, Chhork, owns a tuk tuk which he uses to earn a living. On top of this, Citipointe’s own Phnom Penh staff have given the seal of their approval to Chanti and Chhork’s home! So why, Leigh, do you not return the girls to their family? Today. If you have a reason, make it public.

best wishes

James Ricketson