Kambol (Phnom Penh, Cambodia,). 28/04/2009: Kar Savuth, Defence Lawyer, will take over from François Roux as of tomorrow. ©John Vink/ MagnumKa-set
http://cambodia.ka-set.info
By Stéphanie Gée
29-04-2009
Kambol (Phnom Penh, Cambodia,). 28/04/2009: Kar Savuth, Defence Lawyer, will take over from François Roux as of tomorrow. ©John Vink/ Magnum
Debates on the thirteenth day of the trial of Duch were again studded with concern over translation. Part of the interrogation of the accused regarding the creation of S-21 – the centre became fully operational in October 1975 - was even obscured by co-Prosecutors. As for the Parties, they expressed their impatience about having at last the Trial Chamber come to a decision regarding certain matters mentioned right at the beginning of the trial. A feeling of disorganisation sometimes pervades during hearings and will probably stretch over a good few months.
Duch and S-21
In June 1975, Duch received some political training in Phnom Penh. When asked by Judge Lavergne whether his hatred for police work, combined with his awakening at M-13 on the fact that confessions only partially reflected the truth and the fact that one of his relatives was himself a relative of Lon Nol were mentioned in the biography he was asked to draft, Duch replies that he did not mention that. And indeed, he explains, the point of the training was to celebrate the “April 17th great victory” (when Phnom Penh was invaded by the Khmer Rouge) and participants were expected to express their “sacrifices for the community”, their “commitment to rebuild a socialist country”, and continue their work. Besides, they only needed to appoint their close relatives. But there was a compromising link in Duch’s genealogy: it concerned the wife of one of his mother’s far relatives, who was one of Lon Nol’s nieces.
On his own initiative, Duch ordered the construction of individual prison cells at the Pohnea Yat high school, without awaiting his superior’s decision. After S-21 changed location several times, detainees were finally transferred to S-21 in April 1976 upon a decision of Duch. But the accused only sees a practical aspect in converting a school institution into a detention and interrogation centre. And as for the lot of cameras, typewriters, photocopiers or overhead photo projectors found at S-21, which was better-equipped than M-13 - the centre Duch used to lead - the accused claims these were bequested by Division 703.
The unanswered questions
Mr Canonne, co-Lawyer for Civil Parties Group 3 wonders after the first break of the day about the date when the Trial Chamber will render a decision about the question of the use or not of documents coming from the Documentation Centre of Cambodia (DC-Cam) in hearings. The president stresses that this “complex question” needs “a full answer in writing with references to a certain number of rules, rulings and jurisprudence” and that as a consequence, “the amount of time necessary must be extended”. The decision will be announced after the interruption of hearings, i.e. in the third week of May, the president detailed.
The French lawyer, for his part, wonders about the issue of interpretation. The president replies that the Trial Chamber has taken note of it, and adds that this decision pertains to the discretion of the Court and the administrative part of the tribunal, and that a letter will be communicated to the administration and a copy sent to all of the Parties.
The urgency in sorting out this tricky problem was at issue after the lunch break. The president of the Chamber makes an announcement in Khmer, which is first translated into English and then into French: “The Chamber does not intend to plan any hearings in July and August...” A few protagonists frown, surprised. Judge Cartwright quickly puts right the translation provided by interpreters: No, the Chamber “does not intend to adjourn hearings in July and August”!
Co-Lawyer for Duch François Roux seizes this opportunity: “Once more, I draw the attention of the Chamber. We are in a judicial process. Do you realise the tragic consequences there might be on some declarations made by the accused or witnesses, when after the interpretation, we end up with something that is totally the contrary?!”
Duch, self-taught in techniques of torture
When asked by international co-Prosecutor Alex Bates whether or not he did express the wish to his superiors, in 1975, to be exempt from any security activity by trying to be appointed by the Ministry of Industry, Duch quotes a Khmer saying: “Is it necessary to peel an onion to see the heart of it?” “I did not need to say it. […] I did not dare say it."
A short while later, Alex Bates asks Duch whether according to him he was the “perfect candidate to become chief of S-21, judging by his “experience in the questioning of enemies, after spending four years as head of M-13, his “excellent memory with dates, places and names” and the loyalty he showed for the Communist Party of Kampuchea (CPK). The accused replies: “I was an ordinary member of the Party... I cannot judge myself!! I cannot remember everything, but if I was selected, it is because of my experience in terms of interrogations. [...] After, it is difficult for us to tell what [Khmer Rouge cadres] thought about me!”
When the British Prosecutor asks him about those who personally trained him to techniques of torture, apart from his former superior Vorn Vet, Duch first says “Lon Nol’s regime”, since inspectors of the judicial police used to beat Khmer Rouge prisoners, then says “the French regime”, since members used to torture people affiliated to the Vietnamese Labour Party. He finally says that he took an interest in “Mao Zedong’s theory, which he described in his book”. The theory was originally that of a great Chinese warrior. According to it, “You must know yourself and the enemy really well. In that way, you will not be defeated in a hundred battles! [...] As for the substance of it, I would say that the veracity in the statements made here and there was 50%, 30% or even 10%, depending on the people. So I learnt on my own, I was self-taught! [...] Nobody taught me. There was nothing like American or Chinese coaches but when it came to beating, I learned from the French and the Lon Nol police.”
Office of the co-Prosecutors tripped up over translation
The international co-Prosecutor then presents during the hearing, examples of confessions dating back to before the creation of S-21, the margins of which are annotated by Duch. The Office of the co-Prosecutors issued translations of these annotations in French and English. The document comes from the co-Investigating Judges and the translations of it by the Office of the co-Prosecutors are a problem for Mr Roux. Indeed, co-Prosecutors are “Parties in the trial” and therefore they are not objective, he claims. This translation generates such a debate that Judge Lavergne ends up asking Alex Bates to shed some light on the point he is trying to make. The British national explains that their intention is to show that Duch already annotated confessions at that time (September 1975) and ordered, in parallel to that, the torture of those people and the smashing of enemies. “” These annotations allow for a better understanding of his role.”
A translation problem finishes off the co-Prosecutor’s point. Where simultaneous translation says “relentlessly hound”, the translation given by the co-Prosecutors of words from the original document in Khmer is “smashing to bits”, Mr Roux says. His client then intervenes. ‘Smashed’: I have never used that word in that annotation!” The translation mistake from Khmer to English is confirmed. The French lawyer then strikes the last blow: “Changing one word for another is not neutral!”. He then suggests that one of the Parties translate the documents themselves, that they warn the Chamber by indicating on it that it is a “free translation” and by detailing whether it was generated internally or by DC-Cam. Mr Werner, co-lawyer for Civil Parties Group 1, reacts and reminds that “Translations generated by DC-Cam must not be considered as external, since an agreement exists between the Support Section and DC-Cam about the translation of documents”.
The hearing is closed.
No comments:
Post a Comment