Kambol (Phnom Penh, Cambodia). 21/04/2009: Heavy rainfall interrupted the hearing on the 9th day of the Duch trial at the ECCC. ©John Vink/ Magnum Ka-set
By Stéphanie Gée
21-04-2009
Tuesday April 21st marked the ninth day of the trial of Duch, while a feeling of stalemate somehow pervaded the hearing over the mentioning of the M-13 security centre. The day was generally chaotic and summed up hopes that the trend would change rather sooner than later, that translation issues would be tackled during the hearing and things would at last get to the heart of the matter, in other words S-21. Witness and former guard at M-13 Chan Khan seemed more relaxed than he was the day before, but the audience saw all sorts of happenings in the courtroom. Indeed, a Civil Party lawyer turned up and asked to go back to the very beginning of the story, another Civil Party lawyer was snubbed for not respecting a decision of the pre-Trial Chamber, judges were commanded by parties to do their job and a deafening thunderstorm beat down on the premises of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), thus leading debates nowhere and causing a short recess in the hearing.
On Tuesday April 21st, Chan Khan continues to come up with flexible answers - he tells the international assistant co-prosecutor that the pits where prisoners were detained contained between four and ten people and later claims it is ten to twenty... The questions he is asked by magistrates and international lawyers suffer from obvious mistakes in the translation process into Khmer and confuse him. The witness, who found himself called up as a teenager to serve the Khmer Rouge revolution by becoming a guard at M-13, was visibly and understandably exhausted at the end of the day.
“M-13 was not a school but a Khmer Rouge prison!”
Mr. Khan, the British co-lawyer for Group 1 of Civil Parties who was absent during the first two weeks of the Duch trial, asks the accused to confirm whether conditions of detention at M-13 were “cruel and hateful”. But Duch gets him on that point: “Today I note your presence, a new face!”, he says. Mr. Khan insists: “It is true to say that conditions of detention at M-13 were particularly tough..?” Duch finishes him off: “Absolutely, they were even cruel! M-13 was not a school but a Khmer Rouge prison!!!”
Seeing that the tone in the lawyer's voice is becoming slightly more sardonic, the international co-lawyer for Duch calls out to the Chamber for his fellow-lawyer to be reminded that he should behave in a less aggressive and more respectful way with the defendant: “We are standing in a judicial building, not on a ring!” Mr. Khan retorts: “Your Honour, I am not wearing gloves!” The president of the Chamber then tells Mr. Khan that some of the questions he asked were already mentioned during the hearing. Shortly after, as a response to Mr. Khan, Duch uses the catchphrase again: “I have already said so a hundred times but as you are new, I will repeat it!”
Court urged to make decisions
German co-lawyer for Group 2 of Civil Parties Silke Studzinsky is allowed to take the floor and decides to question the witness on the basis of an interview of Chan Khan carried out by the Documentation Centre of Cambodia (DC-Cam). Judge Lavergne reminds her that the Chamber announced that a decision would be made later as to the use of documents from DC-Cam during hearings, following an incident which cast doubt upon the reliability of a document from this NGO which was read out by judges on April 7th.
Then, a storm breaks, making thundering noises, unfortunately amplified by the tin roofing of the courtroom, a material which is not very suitable in tropical countries... Judges take off their translation headphones and decide on an inevitable recess of a dozen minutes, just enough time for the skies to become more favourable.
The debate over the admissibility of documents from DC-Cam resumes. Mr Roux engages in the controversy. “Despite the merits of DC-Cam, this organisation has never been a judicial body”, he points out, echoing what he already said on April 7th. “Not all of the procedural guarantees appear in those documents, and on top of that, there are translation issues. [...] It is time we put things right, in the right order. Those documents mistakenly happen to be in the case file, they should never have been there!” he says, adding that he awaits the Chamber's precise decisions over those questions.
Also eager for the Court's decisions, Mr. Canonne, the French co-lawyer for Group 3 of Civil Parties, clearly presents the issue in front of judges: “With all my respect, Your Honour, I think it would be good judicial management for the Chamber to tell us once and for all whether or not DC-Cam documents will be used! [...] I insist once more and particularly on the need to tell us how we must proceed for now and in the future. Failing that, tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, in a week's time or in three months' time, we will still be - forgive my language - quibbling over the same old difficulties!”
The only answer he receives is from the president of the Chamber, who urges parties, from then on, to inform him beforehand whenever they wish to refer to a document during the court hearing. Lost in the procedural debates, the witness says he does not remember the interview Mrs Studzinsky mentioned, which he granted to a DC-Cam investigator a few years ago. But it does not matter much as she resumes the interrogation and keeps basing her questions on the document... she is interrupted straight away by the president of the Court. Then, against all odds, the Office of the co-Prosecutors announce they want to submit a document to the consideration of judges, still regarding M-13, which will be dealt with on Wednesday.
Duch has “not said enough”
It is Mr Canonne's turn to present his questions. He tries to put forward Duch's role as a “guide”, beyond the role of instructor with his teenage inductees at M-13, with some of whom, by the defendant's own admission, he established bonds of affection. Ready, the lawyer asks him if he ever considered, once, “to tell his organisation that the prisoners could be re-educated and trained for a new society rather than be eliminated” purely and simply. Duch does not answer the question. He nevertheless explains that teaching prisoners the notion of logic or the Declaration of Human rights was not allowed and repeats the principle according to which not obeying orders simply meant signing his own death warrant.
Mr Roux gives his client the final word. Duch mentions his “promise”: that of writing a document, “about twenty paragraph-long” to mention the crimes he committed against the people from the commune where M-13 was located, and to apologise. He adds that he will try to find a means to “confess” to his people, since, he stresses, he has “not said enough”.
No comments:
Post a Comment