Duch “stands up very well for himself” and mocks Civil Party lawyers

Kambol (Phnom Penh, Cambodia). 29/04/2009: First photograph of the reconstitution held with the accused at S-21 on February 27th 2008, released on the screens of the ECCC. ©John Vink/ Magnum


Ka-set
http://cambodia.ka-set.info

By Stéphanie Gée
30-04-2009

On Wednesday April 29th, Duch continued to impress the audience with his ability to maintain his stamina and focus and with his skills as a strategist. The accused is not an easy catch. He will at times modify an answer he has already given – when questioned by the international co-Prosecutor, he eventually admits that a majority of teenagers recruited at S-21 were employed as guards, while others were assigned the task of looking for food for rabbits, or says the contrary of what he told on Monday April 27th – or at other times, he will establish himself as a well-tried master in the art of dodging. Besides, he openly mocks Civil Party lawyers and does not conceal his delight as they are constantly sent packing.

The trust of the Communist Party of Kampuchea (CPK)
Among all the answers Duch was due to provide, he pointed out once more that he put all his trust into his superiors. He repeated what he had already said before the Trial Chamber earlier this week: “They [CPK cadres] considered me as their shepherd, as their faithful dog”. And indeed, when he was deputy chief of S-21, his superior always asked to be able to meet the director, Nath, together with him. But once he was appointed chief of the centre in March 1976, Duch was called up on his own by his superiors. “That is why I was asked to take the lead of S-21: for me to be their eyes and ears.”

Duch left his mark at S-21
“When I became head of S-21, things changed, the way we reported our activity changed”, Duch declared during Wednesday’s hearing. During another, he mentioned that as head of S-21, the reports he made to his superiors about confessions of detainees were much thicker than those issued by his predecessor...

Mr Werner, co-Lawyer for Civil Parties – Group 1, reminds him that by his own admission during a hearing, Duch declared he was “the creator of interrogation and torture techniques at M-13”. “Is it true, then, that when you talked to Nath [chief of S-21 before Duch, who was then deputy chief, took over] just before the creation of S-21, Nath thoroughly relied on you for the establishment of those techniques because before, precisely, you were the one who created them at M-13?” The accused confirms this role and says once again he used to train his staff in interrogation techniques. As for those who came from a rural farming background, he later said, training them in torture techniques was important otherwise “we feared they might beat prisoners to death”.

When called up by the Swiss lawyer to make a list of his tasks when he started work at S-21, Duch says: “The first one was to prepare all documents, obtained from the Lon Nol regime and drafted, and make sure they were classified as they should be. Secondly, I had to single out the relevant points so they could be sent to my superiors. Thirdly, when we started working together, I began providing interrogators some teaching. Fourthly, I reported confessions to my superiors. Here are the main tasks I was assigned when S-21 was created.” Forever loyal to his same old motto, he adds: “When we received orders from above, we had to follow them”.

On his own initiative, Duch had teenagers come to S-21, as well as former staff from the M-13 security centre which he used to lead; he also had individual prison cells built there and also chose the Pohnea Yat high school, which was to be the final location for S-21, and Choeung Ek, to turn it, between 1976 and 1977, into the place where S-21 detainees were to be buried. The Swiss lawyer then tries to make the accused face his own contradictory declarations: “If you did not like what you were doing at S-21 and wanted to do something else, then why did you take so many initiatives [when you were head of the centre]?” Duch pretends he does not understand and perfectly reformulates the question he is being asked and urges Mr Werner to “buttress the elements of evidence”. Duch finally chooses to answer beside the point: “It is true that I did not like doing those tasks. But the question as to whether or not I could object those tasks and instructions – I could not! If we questioned instructions, it did not mean we were unfaithful to the party but it would have been considered as a direct attack against the Communist Party of Kampuchea. When we were asked to carry out such or such mission, we had to comply. We were not brave enough to say no!”

S-21: a centre unlike any other?
Mr Werner continues: “Do you agree with the fact that S-21 was not at the same level as other security centres since cadres from the central committee went to S-21 because the permanent committee decided to arrest them? Is that right?” The accused: “I would like to reiterate what I said. S-21 never communicated with horizontal levels or other security bureaus. Never! As for the persons who were sent to S-21, these were persons whom the permanent committee sent to S-21 via me”. “Which made S-21 unique compared to other centres in the provinces?” The accused: “We are talking about unique character... In what way? [...] If we analyse decisions made by the permanent committee, we can see that S-21 is not a unique police bureau since the people who are allowed to give orders to all of the security bureaus in the country were the people who were part of four groups: zone secretaries – there were seven of them – the president of the committee of bureau 870, the permanent committee and the brain trust, namely Son Sen. To conclude, [...] when any of the persons from those groups issued an order, all the security bureaus in Cambodia had to obey and implement that order. If it was decided that a person should die, it is that order which had to be implemented [...]. That is why [those persons] had to be referred to as ‘main persons accountable for crimes by virtue of the Cambodian Law’”.

The release of prisoners was ordered in the security centres of Democratic Kampuchea, but never at S-21. Duch explains: “The rule at S-21 since its creation was that every time a prisoner got there, he had to be interrogated and smashed.” “Whoever was sent to S-21 had to be considered as already dead. Nobody was released from S-21 otherwise we would have been beheaded!”, he later repeated. He nevertheless mentioned one exception. From whom did this decision to systematically smash come? “It is difficult to tell who gave us that rule since it was already in place when M-13 was set up. This is therefore the policy of the party towards enemies”, Duch said.

Duch acting with a little disrespect towards Civil Party lawyers
When Ms Studzinsky, co-lawyer for Civil Parties - Group 2, starts questioning the accused, the discussion turns into some sort of a vain struggle. “Mr Duch, answer my question!”, the German lawyer says, losing her patience. “I am asking you to prove patient”, Duch retorts. He chooses to answer, or not, by speaking to the president of the Chamber. Duch does not reveal anything. “No, I cannot remember”, “Please do not interrupt me!”, “Since you are asking a question which has already been asked, I am allowed not to answer!”. Confused, Silke Studzinsky turns to the president: “I am asking Mr President to ask the accused to answer”. The president does not come to a decision: “Accused, it is up to you to choose whether or not you wish to answer...” Duch: “Since this is a recurring question, I choose to remain silent!” A few minutes later, the lawyer leaps in again: “Here again, this is not an answer to my question!”

Ms Studzinsky then asks Duch if he happened to take part in interrogations in order to check on his staff and make sure they worked in compliance with his instructions. “No, I did not take part in them. I encouraged them to interrogate and I used to stay in my office to study confessions.” The lawyer repeats: “You never personally controlled the way these persons did their job?” “I have already told you that in the organisational chart, there was this chewing group, the leader of which was responsible for interrogations.” “How were interrogators checked on?”, she insists. Duch frowns and openly sneers at her with intimidating confidence. “I think Miss Studzinsky has not worked in the military sector or been into senior positions! As head of S-21, I could not take part in everything that went on, it was not possible!”

The international co-Prosecutor intervenes to remark that questions relating to techniques of interrogations and more generally speaking to the functioning of S-21, will have to be tackled later on, since the current subject is for the time being the establishment of S-21 and the Ta Khmau prison. The president then adds, weary, that every day, parties are reminded of that point, i.e. of the need to follow the schedule of debates, and notes that “irrelevant questions are being asked”.

Then comes the turn of Mr Canonne, co-Lawyer for Civil Parties – Group 3. Duch still speaks with a sarcastic tone and once again seems to be leading the debates. The French lawyer asks him to confirm some information but Duch answers: “Yes, what you have just said is correct but quite rough!” He then remains silent, his eyes blazing with insolence. The lawyer asks him who was in charge of getting the prisoners who arrived at S-21 and, as Duch was engaging into a reply, the president cuts him off: “The accused does not have to answer that question since it is about the functioning of S-21... That question will be tackled later when we talk about that topic...” Mr Canonne, disappointed: “That is a shame to block this spontaneity [on the part of Duch]”... The president did not quite appreciate this remark and suggests Mr Canonne do not comment upon the Chamber’s decision.

Duch takes advantage of the loophole. “If I answer that question, we will then be dealing with the functioning of S-21, so I will not answer that question!” Mr Canonne takes note and then adds, for every question he asks, “Concerning the preparation, the establishment of S-21”. Duch seems to be gloating at the situation. “Ha, if we use the word ‘preparation’, let’s keep using that word!”, he says, as quick as a flash.

After the break, Duch is eventually reprimanded by the president of the Chamber, who asks him to maintain “an appropriate behaviour” and reminds him that laughter, with which he received several of the lawyers’ questions, are not acceptable during a hearing.

Mr Canonne resumes questioning. To understand what it was about, he asks Duch about the Angkar, which was the only name of the leading authority which Cambodians knew under Pol Pot’s regime and behind which the CPK hid. Mr Kar Savuth steps in before his client answers: “Could the Trial Chamber ask the lawyer to only ask questions relative to the creation of S-21 and the Ta Khmau prison...?” The president accepts the objection. One of Mr Canonne’s Cambodian colleagues, Mr Mengkhy, takes the floor, but does not meet any more success. Duch almost invariably answers his questions by saying that he will answer “later” or that he has already answered during a hearing.

As a Civil Party Lawyer said as a joke on his way out: “Duch does not need his French lawyer [Mr Roux, currently away]; he stands up very well for himself!”