The testimony of S-21 child survivor Norng Chanphal sinks into confusion

Ta Long, Kampong Speu (Cambodia). 24/02/2009: Norng Chanphal, one of the four S-21child survivors
©Vandy Rattana

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

By Stéphanie Gée
03-07-2009

Norng Chanphal, who came to testify Thursday July 2nd at Duch’s trial, had stepped into the media spotlight at the beginning of the year, shortly before the initial hearing opened. Presented as one of the “children from S-21” and discovered in January 1979 in the gloomy Phnom Penh security centre by the Vietnamese troops, the now 39-year-old man tried to join as a civil party. But since his application was submitted after the deadline, he was allowed to come and testify as a witness only. Nervous in the box, the bulldozer driver only retained very few memories of his short stay in S-21, during its last days of existence. His hearing took the whole day – instead of the half-day announced on the eve – like the survivors who came to the stand before him.

The co-Prosecutors and the S-21 footage shot by the Vietnamese
From the outset, international co-Prosecutor William Smith intervened to request the addition to the case file of a testimony of Norn Chanphal, interviewed last February 13th by the NGO Documentation Centre of Cambodia (DC-Cam), as well as two videos shot in early 1979 by the Vietnamese and entrusted by their government to DC-Cam in late 2008 – but the nature of which is contested by the defence –, in order to allow the witness to comment on their authenticity. The Trial Chamber decided to recess for 45 minutes to make their decision. “This has nothing to do with the witness’ character and I hope he will understand,” the president apologised.

On their return, the judges announced they denied the prosecution’s first request, on the grounds that the document was filed too late as it was done so on that very day. As for the second request, unresolved since the initial hearing on February 17th and 18th, the Chamber said they had not reached a decision yet. The office of the co-Prosecutors deemed the footage to be relevant as far as it corroborated the statements of several witnesses – who reported that children of cadres were also arrested and taken to S-21 – and it presented detainees in ill-health, which illustrated the inhumane detention conditions that prevailed in the interrogation centre directed by Duch, judge Cartwright recapitulated. William Smith added it was the best contemporary footage available on the facts being judged.

A witness overwhelmed by emotion
Centre stage for Norng Chanphal. From the first questions, he conceded he no longer remembered things very well due to his young age – eight years – at the time of the facts. Something he would repeat all throughout his examination. His father, a Khmer Rouge cadre assigned to a millwork working for the railroads, disappeared. They were then told he was sent to Phnom Penh. A few months later, his mother, one of his younger brothers and himself were then taken away. His five other brothers and sisters were spared. The witness recounted their arrival at S-21: “My mother was forced to get out of the jeep. She was not in good health. They shouted at her and threatened her. I was terrified.” He continued his story but soon broke into tears. “Mr. Chanphal, are you able to pull yourself together and calm down?”, president Nil Nonn asked him. “[…] I invite you to be strong and to control your emotions.” Alain Werner, co-lawyer for civil party group 1, which would have included the witness if his application had been accepted, suggested to ask the witness if he needed five minutes to compose himself.

Kambol (Phnom Penh, Cambodia). 02/07/2009: Norng Chanphal burst into tears repeatedly during a difficult testimony
© Stéphanie Gée

Holding a handkerchief in his hand, Norng Chanphal said he wanted to continue. The day following their arrival at S-21, he and his brother were separated from their mother and sent to the back of the building, to a workshop “close to the pig pen.” Did he see his mother again? “During the last day, I was playing outside. I saw her on the second floor. Her hands were holding the window bars and she looked at me. She did not say one word in our direction…” He fiddled with his handkerchief feverishly, while the tears came back. The president drummed the same song. “We remind you to be strong and calm down. […] If you cannot control your emotions and are unable to express your sufferings and describe what you went through, you will not be able to talk about it before the Chamber. […] We hope that after you have spoken, you will feel relieved.” The witness pulled himself together. He said they used to be served a bad gruel that sometimes gave him stomach aches. He and four other children had been entrusted to the care of an “old woman,” who had ordered them not to stray from the workshop. Norng Chanphal explained he was the oldest in the group of children.

Saved by the Vietnamese
When the S-21 staff fled as the Vietnamese troops approached, at the very start of January 1979, the witness saw two soldiers in Vietnamese uniform, one of whom spoke Khmer. He reported the latter asked him who his father was. “I hesitated and then, I wanted to run away. I told them I wasn’t the son of Pol Pot, that I had my own father and mother.” It was a shame that Nil Nonn did not return to this statement to confirm with Norng Chanphal whether the child he was then really knew the existence of Brother No. 1. The witness added that the emaciated state of the children prompted the soldiers to prepare them a meal before leaving hastily. Then, the Vietnamese troops arrived and took them directly to the hospital. A baby in the group was not part of the trip as he had died in the meantime. “Ants were coming out of his mouth and ears…”

Looking for his mother
If Norng Chanphal did not flee as soon as S-21 became deserted, he explained that it was out of fear of not finding his mother again. The children found shelter behind a pile of clothes, unaware they were those taken away from the prisoners when they arrived at the centre. The tale took its toll. The president decided a ten-minute suspension to allow the witness to compose himself. On his return, Norng Chanphal confided he had to eat leftovers of a rotten gruel on the days the children were left to their own devices. Before leaving the premises, he scoured some of the buildings in the compound, looking for his mother, and saw corpses on the floor. “There was blood. It scared me. I kept running and crying while looking for my mother. I also got really frightened when I saw someone chained to a bed.” Shortly after the fall of the regime, he was placed in the care of a widow, before being sent to an orphanage in the capital.

Are you sure it was S-21?
“Are you able to say that back then, you knew it was the Tuol Sleng prison?”, Silvia Cartwright asked him. He did not know it, but as he passed in the S-21 neighbourhood shortly afterwards, he recognised the railings and later on, he was told the name of the prison. In response to the judge, he said he was unable to say whether photographs or videos were made in S-21 by the Vietnamese when they arrived. All of the five judges asked questions to Norng Chanphal, which had not been the case, for instance, for a key witness such as Vann Nath, on Monday June 29th.

Kambol (Phnom Penh, Cambodia). 02/07/2009: Duch sits down again after declaring he did not believe Norng Chanphal’s mother was killed in S-21
© Stéphanie Gée

To the Cambodian co-Prosecutor, Tan Senarong, the witness said he could no longer remember when he first heard about the existence of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC). In addition, it was only recently, through DC-Cam, that he became aware of a video shot in S-21 after Pol Pot’s regime fell. Yes, he said, he recognised himself in the video and he also recognised his brother and the other children, thus authenticating the document.

Later, interrogated by Alain Werner, he claimed he had not met any prisoners while he lived in the workshop under the responsibility of the old woman.

For Duch, Chanphal’s mother did not die in S-21
The accused was called to provide details on the survivor’s statement. “This testimony reflects adequately the sufferings and ordeals inflicted upon Mr. Norng Chanphal,” Duch declared first. He recognised he had doubted that the witness’ father ended up in S-21, but had then discovered his biography, which proved he had actually been imprisoned there. However, he argued, there was no document relating to the stay in S-21 of the mother. He also recalled that no children were spared in S-21. During the hearing on June 25th, the accused had explained that the children of the “enemies” were smashed for fear they may seek revenge. Finally, he believed he could conclude that Norng Chanphal’s mother had died “somewhere else,” in another security centre, maybe in S-24, he later mentioned. His Cambodian co-lawyer, Kar Savuth, echoed his client by pointing out that while the witness claimed his mother was photographed with a prison number in S-21, the picture was not recovered. He said that in addition, her name did not appear on the lists of the detainees eliminated in S-21.

The defence rejects the hypothesis that the witness was incarcerated in S-21
Judge Cartwright wondered: did the statement of the accused imply that Norng Chanphal was or was not a child detainee in S-21? Kar Savuth, the Cambodian co-lawyer for Duch, dispelled any ambiguity: his client did not acknowledge Norng Chanphal as a Tuol Sleng survivor “because there were very strict rules in S-21, in particular, one order dating from January 2nd or 3rd 1979, given by Nuon Chea himself, that all detainees in S-21, whether man or woman, child or adult, be eliminated. And no living person was left behind in S-21, except for the four soldiers who had killed the US journalist and whose confessions had not been obtained yet. […] The accused confirmed to me that nobody would have dared to object to orders received from the top.”

“It seems that the position of the accused and the defence changes according to the elements that are produced,” the international co-Prosecutor commented in response. “In the end, this is about the ability to prove these elements beyond any reasonable doubt. The witness declared today that he had seen the Vietnamese footage and he had recognised himself in the video. To clarify the question, it would therefore be necessary to watch the video excerpt in order to ask the witness if he was actually there, in S-21.” Floor to Kar Savuth, who indicated he had no objections to the elements of evidence. “There is enough evidence to prove that more than 12,000 detainees went through S-21. My client acknowledges it […] and I do not think it would be any problem to ad the name of one more person to the list. However, we would like to see the truth emerge. We do not want false evidence or exaggerations of the truth.”

Kambol (Phnom Penh, Cambodia). 02/07/2009: The ECCC screens show a still image from a video shot by Vietnamese soldiers in Tuol Sleng, on which Norng Chanphal says he recognises himself and his brother
© Stéphanie Gée

Finally, a still image taken from the video being debated was shown on the screens. One could see Chanphal as a child, next to his younger brother, according to the description made by the witness, who claimed he did not know back then he was being filmed when the Vietnamese interrogated him.

“The witness was interrogated and objections were raised, in particular regarding his presence at the S-21 centre in late 1978. The Chamber has enough information to make their mind.” The president then declared the witness’ examination was over.

An unsatisfying end of the hearing
Why did nobody ask Norng Chanpahl if he was the “Phal” of the 1979 trial (against the “Pol Pot-Ieng Sary clique” by the new regime installed by Vietnam), as there is little doubt and as it is adequate in any such procedure? It would have been appropriate to ask him if he had already testified on the same facts before another jurisdiction. And, if he were the same man, what was the reason for the existence of so many different details, and not the least, between his testimony in 1979 and what he described thirty years later? The young Phal said in 1979 that the children were beaten by the “Polpotists” and declared he had seen the latter kill a boy slightly older than himself or inflict horrible torture to the S-21 prisoners.

In the end, after a whole day spent on a boy who was only eight at the time of the facts, the court adjourned in the greatest confusion and leaving largely intact the false “mystery” of his “discovery” by DC-Cam in January 2009.

(translated from French by Ji-Sook Lee)