Duch sheds light on one testimony, while his lawyers discredit another

Kambol (Phnom Penh, Cambodia). 17/02/2009: Phork Khan and lawyer Martine Jacquin, at the opening of Duch’s trial at the ECCC
©John Vink/ Magnum (file picture)

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

By Stéphanie Gée
10-07-2009

Wednesday July 8th, the hearing opened with a twist in the case of witness Norng Chanphal, aged 8 when he was taken to S-21 with his mother. Phork Khan, another civil party, then finished testifying, after other contradictions were highlighted in his statement. He was then succeeded by a survivor of re-education centre Prey Sar (S-24), whose insufficiently focused examination lost sight of the facts being judged. The tribunal’s public gallery, which contains 500 seats, has continued to be filled with visitors. Last week, 2,078 people made the trip to the court to attend Duch’s trial.

Witness Chanphal’s mother was killed in S-21
The co-Prosecutors did not wait to announce the “good news:” the Documentation Centre of Cambodia (DC-Cam) had just found the biography of Norng Chanphal’s mother, established in S-21. In the absence of such a document, the accused had said, during the survivor’s testimony on Thursday July 2nd, that the woman had not been imprisoned in the detention centre – nor had her son, as a consequence. After the new document was shown on the screen, the defence bowed while the accused recognised its authenticity and offered his apologies, through the intermediary of the judges, to Norng Chanphal. “The document is new. I was not aware of it at the time he testified, but I accept it.” As no parties raised any objection, the document was considered as added to the file and presented to the court.

An inaccurate written statement
The hearing of civil party Phork Khan, started on the previous day, resumed with questions from the office of the co-Prosecutors. He said he had not returned to the place he believed to be Choeung Ek, where he miraculously escaped certain death. With help from local human rights NGO Adhoc, Phork Khan filed an application to join Duch’s trial as a civil party in 2008. The application file contained his story, as recorded by the organisation. In light of the many contradictions that appeared on the previous day between his written and oral statements, the co-Prosecutors proceeded to some checking: “Were you read the document?” “I read it briefly [when it was communicated to me by the NGO],” the witness answered. “I did not read everything very carefully. I was told it was very urgent to send the document back quickly, so I hastily thumbprinted it.” And it was obvious he did not have a chance to proofread or update the statement before he appeared in court.

Duch not clearly seen
Kim Mengkhy, one of Phork Khan’s lawyers, invited his client to clarify his various identities. “When I joined the revolutionary forces [in 1971], I took the name of Phork Sakoeun. Then, after the liberation [in 1975], I changed my name to Phork Saroeun.” He added “Phork Khan” was his real name, the one written on his identity card. Shortly afterwards, the civil party acknowledged he did not know at the time that “Brother of the East” was actually the chief of S-21 prison, Duch. When “Brother of the East” came to watch one of his interrogations, he “did not see him clearly” because, he explained, he was lying down, face against the floor and hands tied in his back, which prevented him from turning to look at the visitor.

One name, three names
The defence was intent on not letting Phork Khan get away with anything, whilst his testimony seemed to struggle to settle. Kar Savuth: “Yesterday, the president asked you what your name was – you replied it was Phork Khan – and whether you had other names. You said you didn’t. Yet today, your lawyer asks you the same question and you acknowledge you had three names. So, I would like to ask why you told the president you did not have any other names?”, Duch’s co-lawyer insisted. “When the president asked me that question,” the civil party said, “I didn’t know he meant the names I had before 1975… I am sorry for the mistake. I probably misunderstood the president’s question.” The lawyer lectured him, implying that the president’s question was clear…

Do you have any evidence of your detention?
“Do you have any evidence you can show the Chamber to prove that you and your wife were actually detained in S-21? You have survived, you managed to climb out of the pit, but your name must have been on a list of [S-21] prisoners destined to be smashed. And obviously, nobody knew you were going to survive. […] You said yourself you went to S-21 and did not find your biography or photography. Also, the two interrogations you mentioned did not produce any confession. […] So, do you have any evidence to support your claim that you were detained [in S-21]?”

At last, one of his lawyers came to his rescue. Kim Mengkhy observed that Duch declared to the Chamber that the two documents concerning Phork Saroeun and Phork Sakoeun, and added to the civil party application file, were indeed established in S-21 (Duch confirmed it). He added that his client “was not able to provide documentary evidence of his or his wife’s detention.” The president brushed aside the lawyer’s argument: even if the accused recognised the origin of these documents – Tuol Sleng –, they related to the period going from late 1975 to early 1976, yet “the civil party and his wife were arrested and sent to their prison in 1978.” Nil Nonn noted, “There is therefore a problem with the dates.”

A civil party that does not get unsettled
Floor to Marie-Paule Canizarès, Duch’s international co-lawyer: “Sir, we could note significant contradictions between the written statement, collected on March 12th 2009 by the organisation Adhoc, and your oral statement. The written testimony gives extremely specific details which you today contest. You told us yesterday that we should only take into account what you declared orally and not the information contained in the written statement of March 12th 2008. How can you explain the scope of these contradictions?”

Response of the civil party: “The information in the complaint and the civil party application is different from what I said during the large meeting [organised by Adhoc in his province in late 2007]. There have been some confusion, I recognise it. […] I realised it afterwards, but it was too late to change my statement.” Phork Kahn still did not get unsettled, although he was rather alone in that stance.

“What should one believe?”
The lawyer went into detail and returned to a major discrepancy. “Yesterday, at the start of the hearing, the president asked you to confirm you only had one name: Phork Khan. You said you did. But just now, in response to a question from my colleague, you indicated that actually, you hadn’t understood that the president referred to the possibility you had, before or after 1979, different names. I return to a question you were asked by judge Lavergne regarding your name. He asked you if the name of Phork Sakoeun meant anything to you. He referred to a document mentioning such a name. You said, I quote: ‘I believe that the document contains the same family name as mine, but a different first name. My lawyer showed me this document several times. It is not my name.’ But today, when asked if you used the name of Phork Sakoeun, you said ‘yes’ whereas yesterday, when you were shown documents featuring that name, you were entirely positive to say it was not your name. Here again, what should one believe?”

Phork Khan reiterated the chronology of his name changes. “Yesterday, most probably, I did not understand the question I was asked correctly and that is why I answered the way I did.” Finally, Marie-Paule Canizarès asked Phork Khan whether, before he came to testify, he attended the testimonies of other survivors before the court, which his civil party statute allows him to do. Then, as if defensive, he retorted: “I have not learned this from anyone. No NGO or no one else has helped me make my story” before admitting he was present all last week to listen to Vann Nath, Chum Mey, Bou Meng and Norng Chanphal.

His testimony ended, leaving one to wonder why his lawyers let him go to predictable disaster.

A civil party detained in 1977, but where?
Khoeum Meth, also known as Chim Meth, 51 years old, followed him at the stand. She had also joined the Khmer Rouge revolutionary forces before they took power. In her native village, in late 1974, she was mobilised like the other teenage girls under 18 to serve the revolution. Her female unit was then assigned to rice growing in Phnom Penh. She also joined Duch’s trial as a civil party, in her own name and in the name of five female cadres of her division. Arrested on November 10th 1977, she was detained for 15 days in a prison, but did not know which one, she announced from the outset. Interrogated, she was suspected of participating to CIA or KGB trainings. She felt “deceived,” as she had always done her best on the frontline, she said, before letting out her tears. After the imprisonment and three tough interrogations, she was still alive and was taken elsewhere, where she was put on forced labour.

The public called to order
Before lunch break, president Nil Nonn pointed his finger at “some unacceptable behaviour from the audience, that is some people going in and out of the public gallery during the hearing.” He called for the “disorder” to stop, the public to regain their seats before the hearing resumed and, slightly condescending, lectured the villagers who had come in mass. The words he chose were not very fortunate when the tribunal can rejoice over record attendance, in comparison to other international criminal trials organised in in the world.

The trial resumed and Khoeum Meth pursued her story. In 1978, her unit 17 was assigned to the rice fields.

Out of focus…
Constant exhaustion – “to survive, you had to work hard” –, hunger, ill-health, humiliations, insults, lack of freedom, permanent suspicion, disappearances, fear. Mrs. Meth narrated at length, inexhaustible, losing herself in details. Then, by the end of the regime, early 1979, she and her comrades refused to go meet the Vietnamese troops, whose cruelty they feared. The Khmer Rouge took the women with them as they fled, from camp to camp, until Mrs. Meth, weakened, decided to hide in a village. She was arrested by Vietnamese soldiers who first accused her of being a Khmer Rouge soldier, before releasing her and giving her a laissez-passer...

The civil party attempted to convey the images she retained of the prison where she was locked. “I remember there were other buildings and a surrounding wall;” “I heard children sobbing and pigs squealing. It smelled very bad…” Nil Nonn later noted another detail while listening to Khoeum Meth recount the discussions she had with her co-detainees: “Wasn’t it forbidden to talk amongst yourselves, between you and your colleagues in the cell? But it seems that you were able to talk a little?” “Yes. We could talk but not openly and loud,” she confirmed. “We would whisper very quietly.”

Later, her black and white photograph taken in Prey Sar was shown on the screen – at 19, she still looked like a child – as well as her biography, established in late 1977 at her former division, the 450. The picture prompted the following comment from the president: “You told us that in unit 17, you were very thin and had a skin problem. But you don’t seem so thin on the picture! That’s a picture of you ‘thin’?”

Kambol (Phnom Penh, Cambodia). 08/07/2009: Portrait of Khoeum Meth, taken during her imprisonment in Prey Sar, shown on the ECCC screens
©Stéphanie Gée

Two hours later, it was still difficult to connect the civil party’s story to the facts Duch was accused of. Also, it was still not clear where the woman had been detained and beaten. She specified that during her imprisonment, “I was thrown fish sauce and soapy water at me during the interrogations.” Seeking information, the president asked her to cite place names close to where she was then assigned to heavy farming tasks, within “unit 17,” if there were also children (“yes”), and armed guards (“no”).

“I did not want to remember”
“After the liberation [on January 7th 1979], did you go to Tuol Sleng prison?”, Nil Nonn asked her. “No, I did not go back. […] I was told to go, but I refused because when I hear the word ‘prison,’ all the pain comes back. I was told it was interesting, but I did not go, except when DC-Cam looked for survivors.” Her parents had been invited to go there, a visit organised by DC-Cam, and they discovered on a wall the photograph of their daughter, which they immediately informed the NGO about. “They [DC-Cam representatives] came to see me and showed me two photographs, on which I identified myself. But I didn’t want to do anything else. I didn’t want to remember all that I had been through. […] But in November 2007, I went back to Tuol Sleng for the first time.”

Duch dispels the mystery: a civil party imprisoned in Prey Sar
Judge Lavergne took the initiative to get the civil party’s photograph and biography authenticated. Once again, all turned to the accused for confirmation. Duch wore many hats: accused, lawyer and prosecutor… With an expert glance, he established that the two documents originated from the re-education camp of Prey Sar, which was under S-21’s authority. “You can read the mention of the former unit, which was division 450, and the then current unit, unit 17,” Duch described, before doing what no one had done until then – he read the imprisonment date indicated on the biography: “Meth arrived there on October 12th 1977.” The date did not match with the one she gave. Professional as ever, he declared: “I fully accept this document.”

Called for further comments on the detention of Mrs. Khoeum Meth, which she alleged was in S-21, the accused observed she “was detained in a place that was under the authority of division 450” and said he had in his possession a document showing that “each division had its own detention centre back then.” Duch concluded: “As far as I’m concerned, I believe that comrade Meth indeed suffered and was detained, but at the detention centre of division 450. […] If she had been transferred to S-21, she would have been killed and would not be with us today.” Finally, things became clearer.

Khoeum Meth’s testimony is to continue on the next day.

(translated from French by Ji-Sook Lee)