Duch - Prak Khan, former S-21 interrogator: word against word

Phnom Penh (Cambodia). 10/05/2002: Prak Khan, former Khmer Rouge interrogator, and Mr. Poeuv and Mr. Phiep, guards, during the shooting of documentary movie “S-21, the Khmer Rouge Killing Machine” by Rithy Panh, an extract of which was shown in Duch’s trial on July 22nd
©John Vink/Magnum

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

By Stéphanie Gée
23-07-2009

Wednesday July 22nd, former interrogator Prak Khan maintained his statements from the previous day at the stand. The accused sought to undermine many points in his testimony, without being able, most often, to oppose anything other than his own word to that of his former subordinate. The witness who succeeded him, another former S-21 member, only talked very briefly, as his testimony was hijacked by a heated debate on how to interrogate a witness and the speaking times allocated to each party.

The witness’ lawyer wakes up
As the hearing opened, the lawyer of witness Prak Khan, whose voice was not heard on the previous day, asked that his client be allowed to specify whether he committed torture on his own initiative or upon order of his superiors “because that was not very clear.” The request was immediately denied by the president: “It is not appropriate to raise this question post facto.”

Rithy Panh’s movie “S-21” rescuing ill-prepared co-Prosecutors
The co-Prosecutors launched into Prak Khan’s interrogation by returning to the rules established for the detainees, which were read on the previous day. “We were taught these rules during a training session and they were written down. The interrogators had to record them in their notebooks and mark the page to refer to them,” the witness recounted. Who established them? He did not know, but he recalled that they appeared on the walls of interrogation rooms long after S-21 was set up. The Cambodian co-Prosecutor then asked him to locate on an aerial shot of the security centre and its surroundings the places where he worked, where he saw blood being drawn from prisoners and where he witnessed the tragic scene of a child being thrown off the higher floor of a building. An exercise that seemed to go on forever…

His international colleague then showed on the screen the first page of a 589-page confession, that of the chief of the electricity station, who was interrogated by Prak Khan. He did not write the notes featuring on it and was therefore quite unable to explain their meaning. After this failure, William Smith chose to broadcast extracts of Rithy Panh’s movie, “S-21, the Khmer Rouge Killing Machine” (2004). Here, Prak Khan was seen talking about blood drawings before survivor Vann Nath and showing him forms recording these operations; there, he described his behaviour and the state in which he fulfilled his functions as interrogator at S-21 – “My heart and my hand worked in synergy. That was torture” – or explained how he whispered to a female detainee how to write her confession properly, by suggesting her to denounce a network of traitors and make herself guilty of an act of sabotage, however ridiculous. Although it was pertinent to show these extracts, it failed to hide the prosecution’s lack of preparation. To the point of wondering whether Rithy Panh might not have been a better prosecutor for this trial…

“Did you take the prisoners for animals?”, “I imagine that before starting to work at S-21, you did not treat people in that way?”, William Smith interrogated. Prak Khan chose to remain silent. However, he accepted to repeat that at S-21, only Duch “practiced indoctrination to have an absolute position against the enemies.” How would he describe his former chief of the time? “He was studious, enthusiastic in his work and always meticulous, whatever he did,” the witness said, before adding he never noted any change in that behaviour. Meanwhile, the accused, glasses on his nose and leaning over a sheet of paper, was taking notes.

“I had to reveal the truth”
The co-Prosecutor then cited the titles of several filmed documents, “pertaining to the public domain,” in which Prak Khan admitted his participation to the crimes committed at S-21. He asked him why, after a long silence, he had thus publicly acknowledged the facts. “I thought it was my duty to do so,” the witness justified himself. “I had to reveal the truth.” The prosecution was done.

A civil party co-lawyer chooses to interrogate the accused
When it was the turn of Martine Jacquin, co-lawyer for civil party group 3, she asked to interrogate not the witness but the accused, on the witness’ statements. She opened the way for Duch to defend himself, a gift for him. The accused did not deny he had provided a training to the interrogators. “Could the episode of the child thrown off the balcony have happened, in your opinion?” “I have been expecting this question for some time, thank you for asking it, I wanted to answer it. I do not believe that story. […] I am not sure that this three-floor building existed.” Prak Khan never mentioned a three-floor construction… What did he have to say about his visits to the interrogation rooms, which the witness related but the accused always denied, claiming he never set foot in those places. “I was the director of S-21. My tasks consisted in noting the confessions made by the detainees. As soon as I became the chief of S-21, I only interrogated one person, and one time only: Koy Thuon [former Khmer Rouge Minister of Commerce].” He then explained the task was devolved to others. “He [Prak Khan] could not go over his team leader to speak to me. It is possible that Mam Nay [chief interrogator] took care of that as well. Otherwise, Hor [Duch’s deputy] seconded me in those occasions.”

Duch contests several points of Prak Khan’s testimony
The accused then stressed how much he cherished “organisation and appointments” and argued that if he made someone his deputy, it meant he trusted that person. “If I had talked about any issue directly with Prak Khan without going through them [my deputies], then it would have been pointless to appoint deputies and team leaders.” Did Duch give instructions to interrogators before they interrogated detainees, as Prak Khan claimed? “I had no time to give instructions to each interrogator,” the accused retorted.

Kambol (Phnom Penh, Cambodia). 22/07/2009: The many faces of Duch, who didn’t need persuasion to react to the testimony of his former subordinate Prak Khan
©Stéphanie Gée

On the issue of blood drawings, Duch reacted fiercely, seeking to ridicule the words of his former interrogator. The accused alleged that Prak Khan said in a previous statement that twenty detainees were subjected to such a treatment every week, which would mean a total of more than a thousand detainees whose blood was taken every year. “Yesterday, before this Chamber, Prak Khan did not dare to confirm [such a figure]. Documents regarding the detainees whose blood was taken still exist and, according to my calculations, they were about a hundred [to suffer that fate]…” Who did such a decision come from? “From my superior, Son Sen.” Then, as if he had waited the right moment, he calmly declared: “I categorically reject Prak Khan’s testimony… who said yesterday I provided blood to three hospitals,” whereas he had it transported only to one hospital, that of the chief of staff, he specified.

The accused entangled in his observations...
After the questions of the civil party groups, the floor returned to the accused. “Until January 7th 1979, I had never seen or heard Prak Khan. I did not know his name back then. He was rather low in the S-21 hierarchy.” He reviewed his career at S-21, supported by documents, and added that it was in accordance with the description made by the witness. The accused then rose a point: “the fact that Prak Khan said that the interrogators had the duty to pressurise the prisoners, in particular to prevent them from crying [despite the sufferings inflicted.]” The claim was corroborated by two other testimonies, Duch noted, before continuing: “I also agree with Prak Khan, it is frightening to recall that period. I listened to his testimony and I find it credible. Whether the confessions were true or false, it did not matter at the time, we had to continue. For instance, it was said that five or six S-21 cadres interrogated a female detainee. Prak Khan himself may have realised that the judges did not believe what he said, but he persisted in his declaration. There are other examples. […] It is true there are many mistakes marring his testimony, but I believe it is the result of fear. Back then, they were scared of being arrested by me, but today, the witness is scared of ending up himself before a court, as I have today. As for me, I am not asking that my subordinates be by my side before a tribunal. I am legally and emotionally responsible for what happened at S-21 and I am answering for that.”

... and called back to order
Duch lost himself in the details, referring to multiple documents to support his say, obsessively so. Tellingly, he said: “The witness should put forward documents to prove what he says.” As the accused already demonstrated, he only bows when material evidence is presented. He continued to line up elements although their connection was not always obvious, and firmly rejected older statements made previously by Prak Khan, whom he addressed directly. The accused ended up leading the audience astray, missing his target. The speech was finally interrupted by the president who signalled to him that he only needed to tell the Chamber which elements of Prak Khan’s testimony he confirmed and which ones he denied. Nil Nonn called the accused back to order: “Please mind your behaviour and avoid pressuring the witness. You only have to make observations regarding the witness’ testimony…”

Duch admits there were women in the medical team
Duch then moved on to the medical staff, as Prak Khan had claimed the previous day it included women. “Nam Mon [name of a civil party who testified] was not in the medical staff. But Thuon [Nuon Chea’s niece] was indeed part of it.” Nam Mon’s lawyer, Silke Studzinsky, observed that Prak Khan did not say he remembered Nam Mon’s name. Then, the president again reminded the accused that he must not address the witness but the judges. Duch resumed: “Regarding the female medical staff, there were two of them at S-21.” He cited their names, explaining they were detainees, trained abroad, who were assigned to the unit. Something he had omitted to say during the hearing on July 13th, when he had claimed that the medical staff “belonged to the former forces of division 703 and only comprised of men.”

The defence sceptical about the witness’ declarations
François Roux, Duch’s international co-lawyer, checked with the witness how he found out that Nam Mon came to testify before the Chamber, as he stated on the previous day. As a reminder, unless he or she is a civil party to the trial, a witness cannot attend the hearings before testifying. “I saw her testify on television,” Prak Khan answered. He confirmed he also saw other witnesses testify in televised broadcasts.

Then, the lawyer extracted excerpts from the notebook of a S-21 interrogator, written during the trainings organised by Duch or his deputy Hor. It was thus written, in the chapter “objectives of work improvement,” that “politics” must be used as a “basis” and, several pages later, that political pressure must be applied “in a sustained way at any time,” as the use of torture is only a “complementary measure.” It was also written that past experience showed that interrogators usually emphasised torture over propaganda, which came with this observation: “This is an erroneous experience and we must realise that.” The witness confirmed he had heard this theory back then. François Roux did the same with confessions which, according to the same document, must be written by the prisoners without being dictated to them. The witness again agreed.

Prak Khan maintains he witnessed blood drawings
François Roux ensured that Prak Khan confirmed that absolute secret had to prevail at S-21 and surrounded the staff’s work. He then shared his trouble: “You talk about things which we do not understand how you could know about them.” He returned to the blood drawings – “Duch recognises them since the investigation stage, since the question was asked to him in February 2008.” “I still cannot understand how you could have witnessed what you are telling us.” How could a medical staffer confided with him who the blood was destined for? First, Prak Khan claimed he was the “direct witness” to such scenes on “two or three occasions.” Then, he denied having said, as the accused jeered earlier, it had concerned a thousand people. If the staffer answered his question about where the blood was transported to, it was because he lived in the house next to his. The witness did not yield before the lawyer’s suspicion: “I can confirm you I was personally the witness to blood drawings. I did not lie.” The lawyer did not seem convinced. He did not hide his surprise that the witness was able to have a glimpse in the medical unit or stay one hour observing the scene.

Testimony starts and doesn’t last long
The witness was thanked, his testimony was over. Kok Srov took his place and was informed of his rights and obligations. The 59-year-old farmer, who joined the revolution late 1973, was assigned late 1975 to guarding the detainees at Takmau prison and then at S-21, where he did patrols in the compound. He said he saw there “Indian, Vietnamese and Thai prisoners.” The new witness was not heard more, swept by a procedural debate that lasted until the end of the day.

Co-Prosecutors: “the witness may get scared”
The co-Prosecutors were invited to present the observations they wished to make on the way to interrogate witnesses testifying. Recalling that on the very morning, the president had authorised a civil party lawyer to ask questions not to the witness but to the accused, William Smith noted that it was “not quite appropriate to allow the accused to present elements of evidence while a witness is still testifying. That is what happened today.” “The effect is, and I believe that was noticeable, the witness may get scared because he is directly challenged before even finishing his testimony.” And “the questions [that follow] risk being asked to a witness whose position was weakened by the accused,” he dreaded and suggested that the questions to the accused be asked “after” the witness’ testimony. Why didn’t the international co-Prosecutor make this observation in the morning? Moreover, William Smith added, it would also be preferable that the declarations of the accused be made after his lawyers have spoken, once the witness has finished testifying, in order to create a climate of trust that is “more favourable for truth to emerge,” he explained.

The defence: are the co-Prosecutors afraid of interactive dialogue?
Martine Jacquin did not believe she had committed a fault, but recognised that the civil parties would appreciate having “two speaking times” to interrogate both the witness and the accused. François Roux then commented: “My colleague [William Smith] was concerned about knowing if the witness may get scared. I believe it is rather the co-Prosecutors who are scared by an interactive dialogue.” He rejected the idea of a supplementary time given to civil parties and co-Prosecutors to interrogate the accused, saying he was quite favourable for each party to use their time to interrogate the accused. “I say again that I continue considering that only giving the defence the same time as the civil parties, to ask their own questions, without taking into account the time used by the co-Prosecutor, is not a satisfying solution. […] We are in an imbalance that appears serious to me.” He added on the same theme: “We will all save a lot of time and get more clarity if the civil parties could agree amongst themselves so that each time, it is ONE team who asks questions for the whole parties, by turns.”

The defence complains being deprived of the equality of arms
Judge Cartwright then asked François Roux to cite a “concrete example” when the defence allegedly did not have enough time to ask their questions fully. “I can assure you that we eliminate a number of our questions to fit into the time we are allocated,” the lawyer answered. Judge Lavergne noted that, until now, the defence had never used all the time they are given, so why refrain themselves? “It is no use engaging in a line of questions if I know that I will not go to the end,” the French lawyer explained. In that case, the judge retorted, one should not say “we no longer have any questions” at the end. François Roux said he duly took note of it if the Chamber wished him to do so. For the judge, “the Chamber must be given the chance” to examine such a request. In the same breath, François Roux made his request: the defence wishes to have the same speaking time as the prosecutors and civil parties taken together. In his back, a grinning Duch nodded in agreement.

William Smith had already stood back up. The president asked him to be brief. The co-Prosecutor shared that he would also like more time because he has “the responsibility of proving the validity of the charges.” “I find it surprising that the defence asks more time whereas we want a diligent trial. Moreover, we encourage a truly interactive debate, but it is very important that the witness does not end up talking on his own in his seat.”

Request: bonus questions for civil parties
Silke Studzinsky then intervened to signal that the speaking time for her civil party group 2 was cut short of “three minutes,” that is 20% of their time. As the civil party lawyers were “sometimes unable to ask all the questions they prepared in the time allocated to them,” she suggested they be allowed to “ask at least [their] remaining questions, by submitting them to the Chamber and allowing them to ask them.” The co-Prosecutors supported this idea “on the principle.” François Roux protested. In his view, it equated with another way to request supplementary time and start the debates again. He firmly opposed it.

A decision will be given on this question on Monday July 27th, when the hearings resume.

(translated from French by Ji-Sook Lee)