Does Code of Conduct on Data Protection for Research (GDPR Article 40) cover Cambodia Sub-Decree on Personal Data Protection (Sub-Decree No. 134)?

65% of Cambodia Sub-Decree on Personal Data Protection (Sub-Decree No. 134) you already have

Code of Conduct on Data Protection for Research (GDPR Article 40) already covers about 65% of Cambodia Sub-Decree on Personal Data Protection (Sub-Decree No. 134), leaving 7 of 20 controls as genuinely new work.

Already covered 0 Likely covered 13 New work 7

No control in Code of Conduct on Data Protection for Research (GDPR Article 40) maps directly to one in Cambodia Sub-Decree on Personal Data Protection (Sub-Decree No. 134). Everything counted as covered is covered because both map to the same third standard, which is what a crosswalk is, but it is an inference rather than a lookup.

What is genuinely new work

Nothing in Code of Conduct on Data Protection for Research (GDPR Article 40) reaches these. This is the list to scope.

SD134-1

Scope and Application

SD134-11

Secure Disposal

SD134-12

Third-Party Disclosure

SD134-15

Subscriber Rights

SD134-19

MPTC Reporting

SD134-2

Definitions of Personal Data

SD134-20

Penalties and Enforcement

Show the 13 you already have

SD134-10

Retention Limitation

SD134-13

Cross-Border Transfer

SD134-14

Processor Oversight

SD134-16

Complaint Handling

SD134-17

Incident Notification

SD134-18

Training and Awareness

SD134-3

Lawful Collection

SD134-4

Consent Requirements

SD134-5

Purpose Limitation

SD134-6

Data Minimisation

SD134-7

Accuracy and Quality

SD134-8

Security Safeguards

SD134-9

Access Control

How this is calculated

Already covered means a mapping runs from a control in Code of Conduct on Data Protection for Research (GDPR Article 40) to that control. Likely covered means no direct mapping exists but both frameworks map to the same control in a third standard. New work means neither. We keep those separate rather than adding them into one friendlier number, because blending them would present a two-hop inference as a verified fact.

Coverage is not symmetric. Run it the other way and you will get a different number; both are correct.

From 332,959 cross-framework control mappings across 723 frameworks, 531 of them verified against their source documents. It does not tell you that you are compliant: a mapped control means the two standards ask for the same thing, not that you have done it.

Try another pair · Today's edition