Kambol (Phnom Penh, Cambodia). 20/04/2009: 8th day of Duch trial at the ECCC. Defence Lawyer François Roux on his way to the interrogation of witness Chan Voeurn during a short recess at the court. ©John Vink/ MagnumBy Stéphanie Gée
20-04-2009
On the eighth day of former Khmer Rouge torturer Duch, on Monday April 20th, ranks appear to have gone down among the courtroom audience. Lagging behind the schedule announcing that the interrogation of the accused relating to the creation of S-21 would start this week and would be followed by hearings for Civil Parties, witnesses and experts on that matter, the Trial Chamber continued with the hearing of the last two witnesses testifying on the M-13 security centre, which Duch directed before 1975, before being in charge of S-21. This interlude was seen as necessary to simply put back in context S-21 and the period before April 17th 1975 - i.e. when the Khmer Rouge seized power – a period of time which falls outside of the mandate of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC). Contradictions and memory lapses undermined the testimonies of the last two witnesses on M-13 and left some confused about the relevance of their words at the trial.
Testimony falls flat due to lack of coherence
Chan Voeurn, a dark-skinned 56 year-old farmer, shows up in front of the bar and introduces himself as a former member of M-13 staff. He finds it difficult understanding the questions he is asked. Keeping his head bent over and frowning constantly, he seems nervous and ill-at-ease in his role as a witness. He was only twenty-something when he claims to have been sent to his position for about a year in the detention centre located in the Kampong Speu province, where he was appointed treasurer and then warder.
According to him, Duch himself carried out interrogations and it was he too who struck detainees with blows. As he speaks such words, the accused leans forward on his seat to seriously stare at the witness. Chan Voeurn then describes two scenes he says he saw “with [his] own eyes”: Duch allegedly used a flaming torch previously soaked in petrol to burn the bare chest of a woman. He also allegedly shot his uncle dead with two bullets – he was incarcerated at M-13. The witness then clumsily wipes the tears he is trying to hold back.
During his testimony, judges quickly realise that the witness turns isolated cases into general statements. And neither does the man, now in his fifties, clear up the many conflicts standing in the way between his first statement before the court and the one he made during the hearing, thus sowing doubt among the assistance. Indeed, he said he saw three executions carried out by Duch but on Monday, he only mentioned one... After encouraging him to be more precise, Judge Lavergne has him acknowledge that there is indeed one of the executions which he did not see but “deduced”, as the victim disappeared from the camp. His answers, which he always formulates with assertion, seem to vary as questions are reformulated. The quiz game looks like a real headache and truth struggles to come out. How can this illiterate man answer with conciseness and coherence, when even a Cambodian greffier, who holds a diploma, manages after three attempts to understand what is expected of her, i.e. reading out again Chan Voeurn’s statement paragraph after paragraph to leave some time for magistrates to confirm with the author whether he still stands by his previous declarations...?
Called up to go back over an “issue” he supposedly had with Duch, the witness explains he allowed the escape of three detainees who were under his own surveillance. He was not punished for that and later joined the local cooperative.
"I cannot accept his testimony!"
When Duch is allowed to take the floor to react to these declarations, he says at once: “To start with, let me tell you that the witness was not part of my staff at M-13!” The accused then puts every effort in pointing out incoherent details in the witness’ hearing statement, which do not always compound with the declarations he made before court investigators. “He made things up... [...] He got mixed up with facts and fiction in his testimony! […] This is pure fabrication, from what he heard and what he added!” Staring at him in the direction of the audience where he stands, he adds, outraged: “This affects me! I cannot accept his testimony!” But the witness stands by his statement: “How can he say I was not a member of staff at M-13?” Later, Duch loses his temper again: “The witness did not see anything and he comes to testify at the trial! This is not right! I reject that perjury! As for the crimes I committed, I admit them and I accept to be liable for them!”
Via a methodical interrogation of Chan Voeurn, Duch’s international lawyer Mr. Roux finally has the testimony fall flat as it does not stand up due to too many contradictions.
It is then the turn of the last witness for the M-13 question. Chan Khan is also a farmer and arrived at M-13 in 1973 as a warder. He was only 13 or 14 years old back then, he cannot remember very well. Duch recognises him. Now in his forties, Chan Khan explains that when a prisoner escaped, his warder or guard was automatically held responsible for it, which questions the fact that Chan Voeurn came out unscathed of the incident about the breakout of three prisoners.
Flooded with Judge Lavergne’s questions, Chan Khan fails to give details. “I was young at the time, I do not remember very well...” He says that when three or four detainees lost their lives when they drowned in the pits where they were detained after being battered by violent rains, it was the majority of them... When until now, the number of M-13 prisoners has always been estimated to be higher than just a handful of people. There again, divergences and discrepancies between the declarations Chan Khan made before investigators and those he makes before the Trial Chamber unavoidably surface. When asked whether he recognises Cham Voeurn, he says he does: “He is the one who let some prisoners escape”. At the end of the hearing, Mr. Roux asks judges to remind the witness of the rule stating he must not meet previous witnesses before completing his own testimony before the court...
The fear of Duch
Chan Voeurn told investigators that “Nobody [at M-13] dared look Duch in the face” and that he behaved like “a tiger in front of game”. At no point did he look in the direction of Duch, whom he simply looked at via the television screen standing on the desk before which he was sitting. Chan Khan also told investigators he used to be scared of Duch. “No guard would dare go into his office.” When asked by Judge Lavergne whether today he is still afraid of Duch, he replies in the negative but his eyes are cast down. Hard to believe. His interrogation continues on Tuesday April 21st. Mr. Roux will probably mention translation issues during the hearing as these problems seriously hinder the good understanding of debates.
No comments:
Post a Comment