From the Economist:

Justice and the killing fields: After six years, the court trying the perpetrators of one of the worst mass-crimes in history is likely to end up with just three convictions. Was it all worth it?

Although this article ultimately ends on a (slightly) optimistic note, it does a good job of highlighting a number of reasons why the Khmer Rouge tribunal has been viewed with such cynicism in Cambodia.

The court has faced indifference and at times hostility from the government led by Hun Sen, the prime minister. He himself was a Khmer Rouge battalion commander until he defected to the Vietnamese in 1977. Vietnam’s subsequent invasion in 1979 ousted Pol Pot but also helped Mr Hun Sen to power. Other members of the government were also connected to the Khmer Rouge and have never wanted the court to delve too deeply into the past. All this helps explain why the court limited itself to trying only members of the Khmer Rouge’s standing committee. In 2010 Mr Hun Sen publicly declared his opposition to any more trials, in effect bringing the court’s work to an end.
The court also had to take account of diplomatic complexities. American anxieties about the tribunal were met by restricting its remit to crimes committed within Cambodian borders, and only while the Khmer Rouge was in power. This had the effect of shielding Henry Kissinger, a former secretary of state, from having to explain his and America’s role in Cambodia’s descent into madness.
For all these reasons, many Cambodians have been cynical about a court shot through with expediency

**************************************************************
And on a different note:
From Cracked.com

5 Ways U.S. Democracy Is More Rigged Than You Think