Phnom Penh (Cambodia). 10/05/2002: Chhim Soeur, former Khmer Rouge guard at detention centre S-21, at Tuol Sleng. He claimed he saw a Western prisoner be burned alive, according to his testimony in Duch’s trial©John Vink/Magnum
Ka-set
http://cambodia.ka-set.info
By Stéphanie Gée
06-08-2009
For several days, Duch’s trial has been sluggish and dull. Journalists have tended to abandon the tribunal’s media room. The witnesses, all former S-21 staff members, have succeeded at the stand, or their testimonies have been read in court. It has been more or less the same tune. François Roux, Duch’s international co-lawyer, protested the situation on Wednesday August 5th. He called for a selection of the testimonies read on the basis of their relevance for the debates, at this already advanced stage of the trial.
A foreigner burned alive, according to the witness
Moving on, moving on. This morning, the Chamber heard witness Chhim Soeur,* a 52-year-old farmer and palm juice collector, filled with nervous tics that spoke volumes about his state, in front of a court that appeared to impress him. He was forced to join from 1973 the ranks of the Khmer Rouge armed forces. At S-21, he was on guard duty outside the compound and was in charge of a vegetable patch. He got tangled up in his answers and struggled to understand the questions he was bombarded with. His lawyer recalled, with little tact, he was not very educated and he should be asked simple and short questions.
The main element of his testimony was his witnessing the calcinations of a foreign prisoner, while he was on duty. He saw the detainee be escorted alive by three men before he was made to sit and car tires were placed over him and set alight, he reported. Several hours later, when another guard took over from him, the tires were still burning. Judge Ya Sokhan struggled in making the witness recount this episode.
Similarly to Him Huy and Kok Srov, former S-21 staff members who preceded him at the stand, Chhim Soeur was also reassigned together with his group to work in the rice fields at Prey Sar, shortly before the Vietnamese troops arrived in Phnom Penh on January 7th 1979, without him having committed any fault, he explained.
Not afraid of Duch but… of the judges
In his statement to the co-Investigating Judges, Chhim Soeur repeatedly mentioned the fear he felt and the discipline that was imposed on the guards. “What were you scared of exactly when you were at S-21?”, judge Lavergne asked him. “I prefer not to answer this question.” “When you think of S-21 today, are you still scared?”, the judge continued. “No, I am not scared.” “And today, are you scared of the accused?” “No, I am not scared of him.” “Are you afraid of the judges?” “Yes, a little.” Later, he apologised for saying that. Jean-Marc Lavergne remarked to him that his counsel must have explained him he could refuse to answer questions that may incriminate him but that otherwise, he had the “duty to answer and participate to the search for truth.”
The witness conceded it was difficult to be a guard at S-21 “because we were scared and it was hard work to patrol around the compound.” When he was heard by the co-Investigating Judges, the judge recalled him he said: “It was said that Duch had set up a plan so that, if an enemy managed to escape, you would be arrested and imprisoned in less than a minute.” “Do you remember saying that?” “Yes, I remember but I am not sure…”
No screams heard
After the co-Prosecutors’ questions, a co-lawyer for civil party group 3 returned to the episode of the foreigner being burned. “What makes you say that he was burned alive?” “I saw him be escorted before […] tires were placed over him and he was burned.” “Did you hear screams?” “No, I didn’t.” “What did you feel after seeing that scene?” “I didn’t feel anything special. I would say I felt compassion for the person being burned alive. Maybe he had done something bad, maybe not.”
A witness “happy” with his work at S-21
To Kar Savuth, Duch’s Cambodian co-lawyer, the witness said he was “happy to be on guard duty because I had to reconstruct myself in order to survive.” To François Roux, he confided that back then, he did not know Him Huy [in charge of the transport of prisoners to be executed] but met him recently during the reconstruction at Tuol Sleng, in February 2008.
During his testimony on July 16th before the Chamber, witness Him Huy had declared he had seen bodies of Westerners burned with tires. “As far as I know, they had already been executed before their bodies were burned,” he had specified, adding that “normal practice at S-21 was to burn the bodies of people who had already been executed, which was an exceptional procedure because they were usually buried.”
“I do not want to speak any more”
As François Roux launched into another question, he realised that the witness wanted to take the floor and stopped to give it to him. “I do not want to speak any more,” Chhim Soeur whispered timidly on the microphone. The president asked his lawyer to discuss with him before inviting him to “recompose himself.” The interrogation resumed. “You said earlier […] that you were some twenty metres from the scene [of the foreigner being burned]. Is that correct?” “Yes, that is correct.” “And you also said […] that you did not hear screams. Is that accurate?” “Yes, that is accurate.” It was regrettable that the other parties did not ask the witness if the foreigner looked inert to him or if he still saw him move when the tires were set alight…
A foreigner burned dead, according to the accused
The accused firmly contested that a prisoner may have been burned alive. “The order I gave my subordinates was to burn dead bodies. But later, it was said that the prisoner had been burned alive. And during questions asked by the Chamber, in particular to comrade Huy, who was clearer than others on this point, it appeared it was Him Huy and his group who were responsible for the implementation of this order. But he did not give any details on the execution, probably out of fear of incriminating himself.” As for him, witness Prak Khan, interrogated on July 21st and 22nd had declared the Chamber: “It is quite possible that [these Westerners] were still alive when they were burned.” He explained that the episode had been reported to him by… Chhim Soeur. Yet, Duch noted, the latter said today, in response to questions from François Roux, that he had known Prak Khan “only later.” “Therefore, what he said about the prisoner burned alive does not seem credible to me.” Preferring to refer to what Him Huy claimed, he said he believed that “nobody would have dared to breach an order I had given.” “The orders I gave were absolute orders. Prisoners had to be killed and then incinerated,” according to orders he himself had received, he added.
The president then reminded the accused he must address the Chamber and not the witness. Duch retorted immediately: “Yes, Your Honour. But even if I was looking in the opposite direction, it was the Chamber I was addressing.” The witness was thanked.
Excluding irrelevant testimonies, a necessity according to François Roux
After the lunch break, minutes of testimonies of witnesses heard by the office of the co-Investigating Judges started to be read. The first concerned the statement of a former guard, posted inside S-21, who watched the prisoners. It provided no new element on S-21, only what has already been repeated in court. Eventually, François Roux made an “observation of a more general nature.” “When the Chamber decided not to summon a number of witnesses, it was a good decision. Since that decision, that is June 29th 2009, over a month ago, we have heard MANY witnesses before this Chamber. The question we should therefore ask today is – in light of the amount of information the witnesses gave at the stand, in light of the recognition of the facts by the accused – is anything new brought by the witnesses whose testimonies are being read now? What does it bring to the debates? I would like to respectfully draw the Chamber’s attention to Article 85 of our Rules, which says: ‘In consultation with the other judges, the President may exclude any proceedings that unnecessarily delay the trial, and are not conducive to ascertaining the truth.”
The lawyer also invoked Rule 87, which follows the same principle. “It seems to me […] that at this stage of the proceedings, the procedure should be to ask the office of the co-Prosecutors to specify to the Chamber the RELEVANT and NEW elements featuring in the statements still to be read. In the recognition of the facts by the accused, there are a few points, not many, which he contested. Could we hope that the co-Prosecutors will focus on THOSE points from now on? Will the witnesses whose testimonies they wish to put before the Chamber bring relevant elements on the points contested by the accused?” François Roux again observed that this trial, whether in civil law or in common law, should have been already “over” if it had not been for all these “pointless repetitions.”
The co-Prosecutors remain on their stance...
The international co-Prosecutor rose from his seat to respond. He observed that these issues were discussed “during at least two trial management meetings” and said forcefully: “The time has not come to discuss this issue. Here, we must not make a step back and reconsider the full witness list, which was prepared in consultation with all the parties.” Anees Ahmed assured that “each witness had contributed to the trial in their hearing.” However, one was not convinced…
... and come up with a “constructive” proposition
François Roux fought back. “The defence requests that Article 86 of the Internal Rules be applied and that Your Honour and the other judges consult each other to exclude from the debates the statement that was just read as well as all the other statements that were planned to be read, because the defence considers they tend to unnecessarily delay the trial […].” He reminded that at the time “when the Chamber took its decision, on June 29th, they had not yet heard orally all the witnesses who appeared” and that the situation was now quite different. Anees Ahmed then suggested that only part of the documents be read or summaries be presented. Civil party group 2 objected the defence’s request. As for François Roux, he accepted Anees Ahmed’s “constructive” proposition and added it would be good that the co-Prosecutors be invited to “inform us what the relevant element is in the statements that bring something new to the trial.”
The Chamber accepts to revise the list of testimonies
The judges retired for a recess, which lasted about 40 minutes, and came back with a decision. The Chamber will “review” the list of statements which were planned to be read in court and decide which minutes should be read and which should be only identified or summarised. But in the meantime, the full reading of the minutes continued for the rest of the afternoon. It was the testimony of Kong Hay, who arrived as a child in mid-1977 at S-21, where he joined the defence group.
An incriminating testimony
The former guard saw interrogators torture prisoners and, according to him, Duch gave the order to do so if the prisoners did not talk. He said he saw the accused interrogate detainees, but not torture them. He also claimed he saw, in S-21, in the special prison located outside the centre, the presence and use of a bathtub [to immerse the prisoners in it] like the one shown at Tuol Sleng museum in a painting by Vann Nath. He recognised he saw, on the ground floor of the special prison, the blackboard featuring the ten discipline rules of the security office, which picture is now on display at Tuol Sleng museum.
François Roux: Who is saying the truth, among the co-Prosecutors’ witnesses?
François Roux made the following observation on this testimony: “The defence has a problem. Could the office of the co-Prosecutors tell the Chamber which of their witnesses are saying the truth? This witness contradicts a number of statements that were made before this Chamber by the other witnesses of the co-Prosecutors. For instance, when this witness comes and says that Duch interrogated prisoners himself, other witnesses of the co-Prosecutors came and said the opposite. When this witness says there was a bathtub, other witnesses of the co-Prosecutors said the contrary. When this witness said he saw the ten discipline rules on the walls, this very morning, we heard another witness of the co-Prosecutors say the opposite…”
“One swallow does not a summer make”
On the other side, Anees Ahmed advised to keep in mind that the witness were “first and foremost human beings, [that] they will not repeat word by word what the ones and the others are going to say.” “Their description will not match 100%. […] The time has not come to grant a probative value to these testimonies.” François Roux simply repeated his question: who was saying the truth? In his wake, the accused considered that “this testimony raises problems.” “As the saying goes, one swallow does not a summer make and I refer to the Chamber’s decision…”
Expert David Chandler will appear tomorrow.
* As no spelling indications were given by the Chamber for the names of the witnesses and other people cited in court, most of them were retranscribed here phonetically.
(translated from French by Ji-Sook Lee)
No comments:
Post a Comment