Kambol (Phnom Penh, Cambodia). 13/07/2009: Mam Nay, alias Chan, 76 years old, former chief interrogator at S-21, came warmly-clothed as a witness in Duch’s trial©Stéphanie Gée
Ka-set
By Stéphanie Gée
14-07-2009
Mrs. Nam Mon – civil party whom the Trial Chamber started hearing on Thursday July 9th – continued on Monday July 13th to deliver a confused testimony in which serious doubts kept transpiring as to her detention in S-21, then Prey Sar. Something the accused, Duch, did not fail to highlight. When the much-awaited Mam Nay, who was the head of the interrogation unit at Tuol Sleng prison, succeeded her at the stand, the defence put the Chamber in an awkward position by arguing, in light of the request by the office of the co-Prosecutors to introduce in case file no. 1 the concept of joint criminal enterprise, that the witness may be prosecuted and must therefore be duly informed of his rights…
A succinct medical training
Mrs. Nam Mon, who introduced herself as a former nurse at S-21 where she was then detained and several relatives of hers died, was assisted by a representative of TPO, a psychological support NGO, who stayed by her side throughout her testimony on Monday. She never seemed overwhelmed by her emotions and remained harshly severe while she testified. The photograph of a man that had upset her so much on Thursday July 9th was shown to her again, and this time, she said she was ready to identify him: it was her father. The screen then showed the pictures of her mother, an older brother, a younger brother, her dead father, with the mention of the date of November 9th 1977, her sister-in-law and an older brother, which all accompanied her civil party application. But why was her father photographed dead? The question was not asked.
What did she do in S-21? “I took care of the sick and I saw that prisoners were interrogated and hit. I did not witness it directly, but I saw the blood and wounds on the bodies of the prisoners I had to care for.” She did not see any dead prisoner. She specified she took care only of adults in the prison building where she was assigned at age 15, in 1975. No, she did not know anything about blood drawing or physical experimentations that were allegedly performed on detainees.
When judge Cartwright asked her to describe the medical training she received before taking her post, Nam Mon hardly said much: “I was taught to distribute medication and take care of the sick.” The illiterate woman explained the medication was “simple” and her team prescribed vitamins or, most often, Parecetamol. Once these stocks of medication inherited from the former regime were exhausted, they used “traditional remedies” which were delivered to them. In response to a question from the defence, she later specified that the training was given in a house located “near radio station no. 5.”
Nam Mon specified that only cadres were sent to the “special” building where she worked, and that was where her father ended up after his arrest.
A civil party that did not say everything, out of fear
Returning to the photographs of her deceased relatives, bearing captions handwritten by her lawyer and dictated by her, as the civil party confirmed, judge Lavergne noted a few confusions. On one picture, it was written that it represented her cousin, whom she earlier presented in court as her older brother. Nam Mon explained: “Actually, I didn’t say at first that it was my older brother because I felt ill-at-ease with the idea that all my brothers had been imprisoned. That’s why I said it was my cousin…” On another, under the photograph of the man she claimed to be her father, it was written that it was one of her brothers. “It is actually the photograph of my father. […] I originally identified him as my brother because I hadn’t properly realised it was my father.”
Strange justification for a change of identity
The civil party, officially known under the name of Nam Mon, used another identity under the Khmer Rouge, that of Roeun Chantha. Why? “I used that name to try and hide my parents’ origin. I therefore took the name of my godmother. […] If I had kept my father’s name or a name close to my parents’, I would have been killed,” she explained. Why would she have worried about such a possibility from 1975, when her father was not yet in suspected by the Angkar and her relatives appeared to be well-placed in the Khmer Rouge hierarchy? The question was not asked to her. Her reply sounded even stranger when, a little later, she recognised that “some combatants” did know that two of her brothers were employed as guards at the same prison where she worked. This time, the judge wondered: “How did they know that since you no longer used the same name as them?” “People knew because my uncle and father had let it be known at the beginning. Some people who had worked with my father in logistics were also in S-21. That’s how some could know I was my father’s daughter. But they tried to hide my identity as soon as ‘Brother of the East’ [another alias of Duch] arrived at S-21 and they called me ‘Chantha.’”
Nam Mon does not know all of her file
A biographical data sheet relating to someone called Yarn Yoeun was added to her civil party application. Was that person known to the civil party? Nam Mon thought of her father, but when the judge read to her what was written on it, that is the man was arrested late 1976, while she repeated that her father was imprisoned only late 1977, Nam Mon was lost and stated she did not know who it was.
Duch, “more handsome back then”
During her two years of work at the prison, Nam Mon claimed, in response to the co-Prosecutors, she met no staff members other than her colleagues of the medical team. She was authorised to work only in one of the prison buildings, the one where cadres were imprisoned, and could not circulate freely in the compound. She knew no cadre at S-21, but was aware “there was one person called ‘Brother of the East.’” Invited to identify the accused, she stated: “I believe he was indeed ‘Brother of the East’ but back then, he was more handsome than today.” She saw him almost every fortnight, but ignored at the time he was the one in charge of the prison.
An uncle killed under her eyes
She then recalled a scene, that occurred “one day at 6pm” and which she was able to observe from the third floor of the building where she worked: “I saw my uncle Hoeun be beaten and Brother of the East hit him [on the back of his neck] with a metal rod of about 50cm […] under a coconut tree, outside of the compound,” at the back of the building where she was. “Afterwards, I was blamed for not doing my work well, but actually, I believe it was because I’d seen my uncle’s execution.”
Kambol (Phnom Penh, Cambodia). 13/07/2009: Nam Mon, during her testimony at Duch’s trial, with a member of NGO TPO by her side©Stéphanie Gée
She said she met Duch outside of work, at the house of her uncle – “who was still an important person in her division and both had been friends” –, at two parties the latter had organised at his home. “If your uncle was a friend of the accused, why do you think he killed him?”, the international co-Prosecutor asked her. “I could not find out if they were very close friends…”
Taking care of the detainees so they can continue their confessions
“What instructions were you given?”, the international co-Prosecutor asked her. “Do my best to take care of the patients so they can be strong and continue their confessions. I didn’t understand why those in a very bad state could not receive any care, only those with light wounds…”
An uncle escaped, then the rest of the family was arrested
Then interrogated by her co-lawyer Silke Studzinsky, Nam Mon reported htat until her arrest, she used to go and visit her uncle Hoeun, the one who put her up in Phnom Penh and sent her to medical training. She used to meet him “frequently” until she was arrested. One night, she and the other members of her family discussed at that uncle’s house an escape plan that only uncle Sem attempted. The latter managed to fly to the United States, where he still lives.
Nam Mon, witness to another execution
Before her lawyer, she suddenly remembered also seeing the execution of her other uncle, Keth, beaten by “Brother of the East” in the same way and at the same place as his younger brother, uncle Hoeun. Judge Lavergne then inquired about the new uncle, whom the civil party had until then never mentioned. “I did not include uncle Keth in my complaint because I was afraid of giving too many names. I was also scared of being killed, as I was the last survivor in my family,” Nam Mon explained. She said that two weeks after her uncle Sem’s escape, her two other uncles were arrested, and later, her father.
“Prey Sar was not a re-education centre…”
In the re-education camp of Prey Sar, where she was transferred after three months of detention in S-21 in an individual cell, did she see “children be killed?”, Silke Studzinsky asked her. “At night, I would hear children cries and I saw one child be thrown into the air so he fell back on the pike of a bayonet.” “It was not a re-education centre, but a place where women and children were killed,” the civil party said about Prey Sar.
Nam Mon obtained the right to ask a question to the accused: “I want to know if the accused will deny the true story I just told the Chamber?”
Too many inconsistencies and inaccuracies, the accused opined
After giving another talk about his “legal and emotional” responsibilities for the executions carried out in S-21, Duch recalled that after April 17th 1975 and the evacuation of Phnom Penh, forces remained mobilised in the capital, “in particular those assigned to Vorn Vet to help him at the Ministry of Commerce and those assigned to Son Sen.” Once this historical point specified, he declared he had not found the name of Nam Mon’s father – whom she presented as a logistician at S-21 – in the staff list, nor the name of the civil party in the list of the medical staff, who he said “belonged to the former forces of division 703 and only comprised of men.” He did not stop there. “The description she gave is very remote from the situation that prevailed in S-21. […] Regarding Prey Sar, detainees were given many missions, yet the civil party said she only had to dig pits,” he said with conviction, adding he did not believe “her sufferings were the result of S-21.” As for a transfer of Nam Mon from Prey Sar to another prison (Prey Totem), S-21 simply did not have the authority for such a move, he continued. However, learning from Norng Chanphal’s case, he took care to issue a reservation: “If documents attesting that the civil party was a member of S-21 medical staff were to be found, and if such a document can be presented to the Chamber, mentioning her name […], then I will revise my position. But I am not familiar with all the names [of her deceased relatives] she gave ring and I cannot find them on the lists of S-21 detainees.” Then, concluding his demonstration, he highlighted that the civil party seemed to ignore how many times S-21 changed location, a point he already explained the Chamber.
In a very short time, Duch finished undermining a testimony which fragility had already appeared in its inconsistencies and inaccuracies.
Duch rehabilitates the story of a previous civil party
After the lunch break, the accused returned to the case of the civil party who testified just before, Mrs. Chim Meth. He had news. Unit 17, which she belonged to, was indeed under the authority of Prey Sar, he now admitted, after reading relevant documents, and he recognised the authenticity of her photograph. “What Chim Meth said about unit 17 was true. I therefore recognise she suffered and I hope to get more documents to shed light on her case.” Then, in an unrelated fashion, he declared that “the seven photographs related to Nam Mon’s complaint are not sufficiently supported by other documents for me to be able to confirm or infirm the presence of these people in S-21.”
Nam Mon does not recognise Duch’s photograph
Judge Cartwright jumped in: “Do you recognise one [of the people whose photographs were shown this morning] as staff members or detainees in S-21?” “None of them,” the accused replied positively. “[…] I do not recognise any of those people as having been S-21 staff members.” However, he did not say if he had known them as detainees or outside the context of S-21.
Then, a group photograph was shown to the civil party. Nam Mon said she did not recognise any of the faces. Judge Cartwright then turned to Duch, who listed the names of the people featured on the old black and white picture, essentially S-21 staff members… including himself.
Nam Mon: in Tuol Sleng since 1975
Kar Savuth, Cambodian co-lawyer for the accused, highlighted some inconsistencies in Nam Mon’s testimony. From the first question, Silke Studzinsky intervened: “I ask Your Honour to request that my colleague Kar Savuth talk to the civil party in a less aggressive manner.” The president agreed and recalled for the defence that this was an emotional topic. The lawyer apologised, it was his “habit to talk in this way” but he had never intended to threaten Nam Mon. He corrected himself. How was she able to work since mid-1975 at S-21, when S-21 had not yet been established on the premises of Tuol Sleng? “We treated the people who were there, those who prepared the place before S-21 was set up there,” Nam Mon answered. “And when cadres and their families were arrested, the place became a place of detention and that’s how Tuol Sleng prison was established. But I was there from the start. I began by providing care to the soldiers, then to the prisoners.”
Tuol Sleng or S-21?
“Under Pol Pot’s regime, were people authorised to organise parties?” “At the time when my parents and my uncle were still alive, yes, it was still possible to organise a party. Afterwards, it wasn’t.” Did she know Nath, who directed S-21 until Duch took charge in 1976, François Roux, the international co-lawyer for the accused, asked her. “No, I do not know this name.” In any case, when she arrived in Tuol Sleng in 1975, the person in charge of the premises was someone named Yem, “a subordinate of my uncle” (Hoeun), and “the place became a prison only when ‘Brother of the East’ arrived,” she stated, adding that Tuol Sleng “never changed location.” Duch was not asked whether Tuol Sleng was already “inhabited” when he decided to establish S-21 there permanently in 1976.
If Nam Mon did not indicate in her civil party complaint of July 9th 2008 that she had seen her uncle’s execution, it was “out of fear to be killed,” she repeated. She had not mentioned it even to the judges, but only when she was interrogated by the co-Prosecutors. “It is true. Because at first, I didn’t want to talk about them.” In her complaint, she did not mention either she had witnessed the killing of children in Prey Sar. The civil party recognised she had reported only today the scene of a children being thrown into the air and falling back on the pike of a bayonet, only when she was interrogated by her lawyer. Without any other explanation. The president thanked her for her testimony. Next.
Mam Nay, Duch’s former subordinate, informed of his rights
Mam Nay, alias Chan, 76 years old, took his seat. He was warmly-clothed: a krama wrapped around his neck, two shirts one over the other, and mittens on his hands. From the outset, the president announced to the former head of the interrogation unit in S-21 that as a witness, he had the right to remain silent and not answer “a question that may incriminate him.”
Joint criminal enterprise: the defence scores
François Roux then shared a concern of the defence: “As you know, the co-Prosecutors have filed a request for the application of the concept of joint criminal enterprise. In paragraph 9 of this request, […] it is indicated that the co-Prosecutors consider that Duch was an integral part of a joint criminal enterprise that included his subordinates at S-21. This clearly means that, should the Chamber grant this request, the witness present here, who was a subordinate of Duch, may be prosecuted by the co-Prosecutor, whether he remains silent or not. It seems to me it is our duty to inform the witness at this stage of what may happen to him. It seems to me it is our duty to allow the witness to discuss immediately with his own lawyer, who will explain him what joint criminal enterprise is and that, if the Chamber should grant the co-Prosecutors’ request, he may be prosecuted, either before this tribunal or before a domestic court. So, before going further, Your Honour, I would like you to inform the witness of his rights and to authorise him to meet his lawyer immediately, unless… Unless the office of the co-Prosecutors immediately renounces their request regarding joint criminal enterprise.” The arguments prompted stir in the audience.
William Smith responded: “The co-Prosecutors have already told the co-Investigating Judges they would not seek to prosecute the present witness before the ECCC [Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia] […], before the co-Investigating Judges have met and interrogated the witness. The co-Prosecutors’ position has not evolved since and whatever the result of the co-Prosecutors’ request regarding joint criminal enterprise, as you know, this will have no consequence in this case.”
François Roux had not said his last word. “When the co-Prosecutors said that to the co-Investigating Judges, they had not yet filed the request I have mentioned and which is extremely clear, as it refers to all the subordinates in S-21. […] Secondly, you are saying today that you will not prosecute the witness before the ECCC. Can you affirm before this audience that the witness will not be prosecuted before the national courts? Can you guarantee that to him? If you cannot, I ask that he be allowed to consult his lawyer immediately.”
The international co-Prosecutor had no objection to the witness consulting a lawyer and “reiterated that charges before the ECCC do not depend on a decision you will render on joint criminal enterprise, Your Honour.”
Mam Nay wants a lawyer
Interrogated, Mam Nay claimed he did not have a lawyer. “Do you think you need a lawyer to assist you before you testify?”, the president asked him. Unsurprisingly, the witness answered positively, saying he did “not have the means” to hire one.
The Chamber had contacted the Legal Aid Scheme, but “unsuccessfully until now,” the president noted, before deciding to adjourn Mam Nay’s testimony. And, “since no other witness was scheduled to appear,” the hearing was adjourned…
That was a swift move operated by the defence, as the co-Prosecutors’ request was filed when case file no.1 was already referred to the Trial Chamber and it had already delayed the opening of Duch’s trial by five months. The disarray of the Chamber and the office of the co-Prosecutors revealed they had not thought of such a scenario, while the concept of joint criminal enterprise continues to complicate the case. On a procedural level, the defence’s remark was pertinent and implacable. However, it meant that there will be nothing to expect from witnesses like Mam Nay, if they are duly assisted by lawyers and aware of their right to remain silent. Some information may remain buried forever, though it is unclear if such individuals were ready to make revelations to the Chamber when they have always refused to talk to this day…
No comments:
Post a Comment