A former S-21 guard incriminates Duch in fragile testimony

Phnom Penh (Cambodia). 10/05/2002: Prak Khan, former Khmer Rouge interrogator at S-21, during the shooting of documentary movie “S-21, the Khmer Rouge Killling Machine” of Rithy Panh
©John Vink/Magnum

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

By Stéphanie Gée
22-07-2009

Third subordinate of the former director of S-21 to take the stand on Tuesday July 21st, Prak Khan made specific accusations against Duch, although they were unfortunately often supported by one example only. Judges highlighted several contradictions between his testimony and statements he made previously, which left the impression of a “reconstructed” story before the Trial Chamber, possibly on the basis of what he heard during the trial. At several times in his testimony, the accused seemed to show some disbelief as amused smiles appeared on his face.


An “inappropriate” in camera session
Before hearing the new witness, the president announced that the previous day in camera session – which dealt with a request by the office of the co-Prosecutors aimed at examining a request by the defence to warn the witnesses of their right to avoid self-incrimination – had been “inappropriate.” “The Trial Chamber will continue to make sure that the witnesses who may be at risk of self-incrimination receive the required legal aid. […] As for the defence, they must no longer warn the witnesses of their right to remain silent when they come and testify.”

A child thrown off the floor
Prak Khan, who is 58 years old and has lost his right ear, took his seat. The president reminded him of his duties and obligations as a witness. He had a lawyer, which was not very useful to him. He joined the revolution in late 1972, in a farming section before being assigned to division 703. After the capture of Phnom Penh, on April 17th 1975, he was assigned as labour force in the rice field, in Prey Sar, which “at the time, was not under the authority of S-21, but division 703,” he later claimed. Late 1975-early 1976, he no longer knew, he was sent to S-21 where he became an “ordinary guard,” a sentinel posted outside the security centre compound.

To judge Ya Sokhan, who numbed the audience by taking such a long time to ask his questions, the witness described the movements of prisoners transported by trucks. Prak Khan said he saw children detained at S-21 and reported a related incident: he saw Dek Bou, a chief of guards, take away from the hands of a Vietnamese prisoner her young baby and “throw him off the superior floor.” “Afterwards, I was made to bury the baby’s body.” On June 16th, Duch had denied that children were thrown off floors. “That never happened,” he had then exclaimed.

“Do you know when Vietnamese war prisoners were arrested?” “I am not quite sure, but I think it happened around late 1976 or early 1977.” He believed there were “more than a hundred” imprisoned at S-21.

What training for interrogators?
Late 1976, the simple guard was attached, within S-21, to the interrogators team, the “chewing group.” “I don’t know who made the decision […]. At the start, there was not really any training as such. I simply observed the interrogators to see how they did and, after a month or two, I was authorised to interrogate myself, on my own.” Much later, he perfected his knowledge during short training sessions “at Duch’s political school.” He claimed the accused was the instructor there.

What about the interrogation and torture methods taught, partly by Duch? “We were taught how to torture prisoners so they did not die. Otherwise, we could no longer obtain their confessions and risked being punished. We were also trained on lashing the prisoners, electroshocks, cane beating or using a plastic bag to make them suffocate.”

Kambol (Phnom Penh, Cambodia). 21/07/2009: Prak Khan, during his testimony in Duch’s trial
©Stéphanie Gée

The rules that bound the interrogators, he recalled, were not to cause the death of a detainee during torture and make sure no one escaped. As for the prisoners, “they were told not to make any noise, not to swear, not to shout slogans or cry when they were tortured,” he summarised. Discipline rules that were “constantly reminded during studying sessions.” As for the “KGB,” “CIA,” “Vietnamese enemies” or “networks of traitors” terminology, “all of that was taught to us by Duch.” To determine who among the detainees was guilty or an enemy, the accused hammered that “as long as someone had been arrested by the Party and taken to S-21, that person was an enemy.”

The accused allegedly interrogated a female detainee
His so-called chewing group was in charge of interrogating “rigorously any detainee who refused to answer.” Prak Khan conceded that the said detainee would have already been tortured and bear injuries on the body, but not yet given out the confessions expected of him. The witness then claimed he saw the accused interrogate a prisoner himself. It was a woman, who was brought back unconscious to her cell at 3am. He witnessed the episode because he had been asked to be on guard duty outside the door of the room. “I did not see very clearly what was happening. I think [Duch] simply interrogated the detainee and others tortured her.” Did Duch give orders to torture her? Prak Khan did not know. On June 16th, the accused had categorically rejected such a story: “I do not think such an event could have happened at S-21.”

Phone calls from Duch...
In principle, the witness recalled, an interrogator was alone with the detainee and nobody came to observe. “But sometimes, Duch would come nearby and ask questions to know if the prisoner had confessed or not, before leaving again.” Prak Khan explained he received instructions on the detainees to interrogate “sometimes by a written message [by the hand of the accused] that was given to me by a messenger, sometimes by phone,” calls that were sometimes made by Duch. The information stirred surprise, as the witness was a simple interrogator. Once the interrogations were over, he reported back to his group leader. The judge wondered: “To the co-Investigating Judge, you said that when the prisoner’s confessions were finished, you sent them either to Chan [Mam Nay, chief interrogator] or to the accused. But now, you are telling us that you sent them to your group leader. Why this discrepancy in your statements?” “It depended on the network. I gave the confessions to my group leader and he was the one to then transmit them either to Chan or Duch,” the witness justified.

“50 to 60% of the detainees were not interrogated”
As for the interrogation of female detainees, without handcuffs or blindfold, it had to take place with open doors and windows while the interrogator had to remain at a distance from them to avoid any licentious behaviour, Prak Khan detailed. A majority of prisoners were not interrogated. “Probably 50 to 60% of the detainees were not interrogated because we lacked interrogators or because a lot of time was needed for an interrogation to reach its end.” Indeed, he specified that an interrogation lasted from one to several months.

Torture only upon authorisation, according to the witness
“Did you need to ask permission before performing acts of torture?”, the judge inquired. “As a general rule, the interrogator did not have the right to torture anyone, except upon specific instruction from Duch to do so.” “And if the detainee did not make full confessions, could the interrogator use torture?” “We could only use torture when we had received the order to do so,” the witness insisted. He again added that the orders of the accused “were usually given by phone or verbally.” Again, Duch looked sceptical upon hearing such a detail. “What kind of violence was inflicted upon the detainees?” “I would rather not answer.”

Witness to drawing of detainees’ blood
Prak Khan claimed he saw blood drawing be performed on detainees, to provide hospitals with blood for wounded soldiers. “For one detainee, five bags of blood had been taken until that person was dying,” he detailed. It was curious he was able to observe this in detail, in 1977-1978, even occasionally, when he would walk “near the office of the medical staff.” In any case, Duch now recognises that the practice took place at S-21.

A witness influenced by the stories heard in court?
“Did the S-21 medical staff include women?” “Yes, there were some.” He knew that because he was hospitalised there, he said. “Was one of these women named Nam Mon [a civil party who came to testify and presented herself as a S-21 nurse]?” “It is possible…” “How can you remember Nam Mon’s name?” “I remember the name because she came to testify here before the Chamber.” “Can you tell us if she was actually a member of the S-21 medical staff?” “By the way she talked, I was convinced she was, but I cannot say it with certainty because I do not remember her name.” “At S-21, were there cells that were high enough for one to stand up in it?” “Yes, it was in each stairwell, under the steps […], arranged either to store things or to place detainees there.” Did Prak Khan also hear this detail during the trial, during the testimony on July 7th of civil party Lay Chan ?

Contradictions
Judge Cartwright returned to an incident observed and reported by the witness, a prisoner interrogated and tortured until she fainted, in the presence of Duch. She sought to ascertain its veracity before saying: “During a previous testimony, you said the accused Duch was the one who inflicted electroshocks on this woman. Is that accurate?” “Yes, Duch was the director at the time. It was not him who was tortured.” He also said he did not know if he gave the order to torture her. “So, you are saying that you were able to hear Duch clearly, that you could see him in the room, and you confirm today that it was Dek Bou who inflicted electroshocks on that woman. Is that right?” “Yes, it was Dek Bou who tortured the detainee…” Earlier in the hearing, he had recognised he had not witnessed the accused perform torture.

Kambol (Phnom Penh, Cambodia). 21/07/2009: Duch, closely following the statement of his former subordinate Prak Khan
©Stéphanie Gée

The New Zealand judge raised another contradiction. “Earlier today, you said you did not see pregnant women at the prison. But in an earlier statement, you mentioned a pregnant woman who allegedly gave birth in the prison…” Prak Khan gave an answer that made no sense before admitting that today, he could no longer confirm what he had said previously.

Contacts between Duch and Prak Khan
Her French colleague chose to interrogate the witness on his contacts with Duch, at the time when he was an interrogator. “I had to be in contact with him [Duch] because he was the one I reported to constantly. […] So, contacts with him were fairly frequent.” “Did you often have phone contacts with Duch?” “They were only occasional.” The accused monitored progress on the interrogations, the witness explained, and gave instructions, particularly for important prisoners whose confessions were waited. Judge Lavergne sought to have the witness say, with much difficulty, if those instructions could involve the resort to any kind of violence. The witness eluded until he finally acknowledged that point.

A witness who does not incriminate himself
During the trainings they were given by Duch, “they were taught to insert needles under the nails” of detainees, Prak Khan stressed, in order to provoke acute pain without the victim risking death. On this matter, the witness was careful not to incriminate himself, as he was told, and thus declared: “I did not participate to torture, but I saw how others [interrogators] tortured until the detainees lost consciousness.” He added that Duch had recommended them “the light approach to humiliate the enemies by the treatment they were given,” whether it was forcing them to eat their own feces or to bow before the picture of a dog, he cited as examples.

Judge Lavergne asked him: “Did you see Duch participate to some interrogations?” “No, I did not see that.” If he saw him do so, it was very brief. “He would come and go,” the witness added. On June 16th, the accused had assured he had not participated to interrogations of prisoners and never been to the interrogation rooms.

Santebal rules
The judge asked that the screens show the blackboard, now at Tuol Sleng museum, on which the ten rules of the Santebal (political security office, S-21) are written, for the attention of prisoners: “Answer the question you are asked, do not stray from it”, “Answer questions immediately without thinking,” “When you are electrocuted, do not shout”… “Any breach of these rules will be punished by ten cane blows and five electroshocks.” The minutes of the reconstruction indicate that, according to Prak Khan, these rules featured in all the rooms, written on the wall or a blackboard. The witness confirmed: “These rules had to be prominent in all the interrogation rooms in order to put psychological pressure on the prisoners.” Today, there is nothing left of these writings and boards, and, as judge Lavergne pointed out, “the accused denied the claim during the reconstruction,” arguing that if these rules had existed, they would have been found in the interrogators’ notebooks that survived or in torture manuals. In court, Duch had thus affirmed that the board had appeared after the arrival in 1979 of the Vietnamese, who were eager to do propaganda by blackening the crimes of the Khmer Rouge regime to better justify their military intervention.

The judge asked the accused to stand up to verify if the witness did recognise him.

And Him Huy?
Finally, left unsatisfied on the previous day, judge Lavergne asked him whether, in his memory, Him Huy, another S-21 staff member who preceded him at the stand, was present at S-21 until the last days of existence of the security centre. But Prak Khan did not remember.

At the end of the day, the witness’ credibility was hard-hit…

(translated from French by Ji-Sook Lee)