One witness at the stand without reason, another summoned with reason

Kambol (Phnom Penh, Cambodia). 10/08/2009: At the trial of Kaing Guek Eav, alias Duch, at the ECCC
©John Vink/ Magnum

Ka-set

By Stéphanie Gée
11-08-2009

And one more witness that didn’t matter! Nothing new was brought by Chhun Phal, though his hearing on Monday August 10th exceeded the half-day initially scheduled for it… No sense or reason here. Why let witnesses who were not worthwhile come to the stand and shorten the time for the testimonies of those who help advance the trial? One could not help questioning the competency of the judges. In the air, there was a feeling that the trial was now over in the minds of the judges, who now contented themselves with respecting the established schedule without making further efforts in the search for truth. The second witness to appear was more interesting and claimed he saw the accused hit a detainee.

Civil parties at the stand soon
President Nil Nonn listed the victims who joined Duch’s trial as civil parties and announced that 18 would be heard by the Chamber soon – a total of 35 hours have been allocated for their testimonies. The defence will be given a chance to contest the application of the latter civil parties on Monday August 17th. They already warned that the accused expressed doubts over the validity of the application of at least five civil parties, arguing that the documents featured in their files were “insufficient” to prove that the victims they represent were actually detained at S-21.

A president concerned with verifying the witness’ reliability
Chhun Phal, a 47-year-old rice farmer whose childlike face often broke into a smile, started being interrogated. He used to be a guard inside S-21, which he referred to as “Tuol Sleng.” “Can you remember in which town or province this place is located?” “I did not know in which province or town it was.” Laughter broke out in the public gallery.

The president attempted to make him describe the building where he was on duty and those nearby. But without any map or photograph to help, it was the confusion and the exchange became absurd. Nil Nonn appeared little convinced by the witness who struggled to understand the questions he was asked. Then, the president pulled out the usual questions. What were the detention conditions? How were the prisoners dressed? What were the food rations? How did they wash? How did they take their clothes off [when they were sprayed with a hose] since their ankles were shackled? Etc. Except this time, the president failed to hide his doubts over the reliability of the testimony and seemed keen to verify whether Chhun Phal really worked at S-21, which was not the object of this trial…

“Did you see foreigners be detained?”, the judge asked him. “For example, Westerners, people with blond hair, hairy chest and pale complexion?” This description of “Westerners” seems to have become a standard definition in the trial.

A witness who did not know Duch
The witness assured that, to get a prisoner out of his cell, the group leader was alerted for him to appoint a guard who would take the detainee to an interrogation room. For his part, former S-21 guard Kok Srov, heard on July 27th by the Chamber, had affirmed that “the interrogators were those who escorted the prisoners” to the interrogation rooms, while the guards only opened and closed the door of the cells. Did the prisoners who were taken away in the evenings return to their cells? If not, what happened to them? “Only the hierarchy knew what happened…”, said Chhun Phal, who “never met or saw” Duch at S-21. “Who was the director of S-21?” “I do not remember. I did not know his name,” the witness stated. However, he did know the killing field of Choeung Ek where he was once assigned the task of burying bodies in a grave pit.

A witness hesitating to confirm what he said during the investigation
“Did you note if there were many detainees who were lying there before being buried?” “I am unable to give you an exact number. If I told you it was a high number, it would not be the truth. If I told you it was not a very high number, it would not be the truth either.” A ripple of laughter ran through the audience, especially among the many villagers present in the public. No, he was never led to dig grave pits. Yet, the judge reminded him, he declared in January 2008 to the investigators of the office of the co-Investigating Judges that one month before the Vietnamese troops arrived on January 7th 1979, someone named Sueur, his group leader, asked him to dig a couple of pits at Choeung Ek. “I think I have forgotten [I said that],” Chhun Phal eluded. The president attempted to freshen up his memory, but the witness answered beside the point: “Yes, I was given the task to bury bodies.” Nil Nonn rephrased his question: “Do you maintain this statement, that your group leader ordered you to dig grave pits at this place?” Silence. The witness’ counsel requested time to consult with his client. After discussing with his lawyer, Chhun Phal was again asked to answer this question. “Yes, actually, I dug pits as I explained it to the investigators.” This illustrated the impact of an observation by the defence, earlier in the trial, to remind former S-21 staff members called to testify that they must be aware of their right to remain silent when their statements before the Chamber may incriminate them.

On the presentation of written documents to an illiterate witness…
The president gave the floor to the prosecution. The Cambodian co-Prosecutor showed on the screen a photograph of the blackboard listing the Santebal rules and asked him if he saw these rules displayed anywhere at S-21. The witness’ lawyer intervened: his client was illiterate and the question should be asked in a different way. The observation was “pertinent,” the president approved. The co-Prosecutor rephrased his question, but received no answer. As the president invited him to move to the next question, the international co-Prosecutor took over and returned to Chhun Phal’s declaration to the investigators of the office of the co-Prosecutors, in which he declared he “could read and write Khmer.” “Is that accurate?” “Under Pol Pot, I was young and I received only limited education. So, I can only read a little. I never studied Khmer and I don’t know all the alphabet.”

Chhun Phal heard about rapes at S-21
To the same investigators, he claimed rapes had taken place at S-21. The witness confirmed. However, he did not witness any himself or met any victim of it, so he could “not say anything about it.” Then, what was his basis for such an assertion? Silence. Did colleagues tell him about it? He explained that his group leader told him that guards who raped prisoners must be arrested. Then, Anees Ahmed presented a photograph of the witness’ biography written at S-21. “Is this your biography?” “I am not sure because my biography was written by my group leader and I never saw that document.” Chhun Phal’s lawyer intervened again: his client was unable to read a document in Khmer, so he should not be presented with such documents. Unnerved, the international co-Prosecutor reminded that in the minutes of his statement to the office of the co-Prosecutors, the witness said he could “read, write and understand Khmer.”

The witness does not recognise nurse Nam Mon
Hong Kim Suon, for civil party group 4, interrogated him on the S-21 medical staff. “If there were some of its members here today, do you think you would recognise them?” Chhun Phal doubted it because “too many years have passed since.” The lawyer then presented him Nam Mon, a civil party who testified on July 9th and 13th and claimed she was a nurse at S-21, which Duch contested. The petite woman approached, standing straight, and stood between the table of the civil party lawyers and that of the co-Prosecutors. A few short seconds passed before Chhun Phal declared her face was not familiar to him and added there were no female medical staff who worked in his building. Repetitive questions then ensued.

The prisoners’ washing: innovation of the witness
Turn to the defence. “[In your statement to the office of the co-Investigating Judges,] you said you had to spray the prisoners and here [to Hong Kim Suon], you said you passed the hose to each detainee so they could wash.” Kar Savuth asked him for a clarification, as the witness contradicted his previous statement by now claiming that the hose circulated between the prisoners. No, Chhun Phal did not see any inconsistency on this point: “I said I held the hose, then I passed it to each prisoner.” Turnaround or mistake in the minutes of his statement? In any case, he was the first to give such a version of the washing. Up to this point, survivors as well as former S-21 guards affirmed that a guard would spray the detainees with a water hose from the cell door. The witness also confirmed to Kar Savuth that there were “no rules prohibiting any communication between the guards.”

The defence scores
Marie-Paule Canizarès, Duch’s international co-lawyer, standing in for François Roux, away for two weeks, pursued. “Before the co-Investigating Judges […], you declared you did not know the defendant [Duch]. This morning, you confirmed this statement to the Court, by saying you had never seen or met him. […] Can I infer that, as far as you know, Duch actually never came to the building or buildings where you have worked?” “Yes, that is correct.” That was one more witness presented by the office of the co-Prosecutors whose interrogation worked in the favour of the defence.

Phal’s psychology, according to Duch
Duch could only recognise this former subordinate. “He was among those I asked to come from Kampong Chhnang […] and he was younger than 16 at the time. He met the criteria I had established, in particular his class background: he was a poor peasant. So, he had a very limited level of education, as it was obvious in his testimony today. […] I did not want to choose people who were already shaped by anyone. So, I had to select people I could train psychologically and politically. I think that the Chamber also understands comrade Phal’s psychology. He wished to have nothing and know nothing. He did not even know who his superior was and did not know my face or voice – and he did not seek to know them. In my opinion, it does match the fact he was a S-21 staff member.” When the witness cited Sueur as group leader, Duch said he was comforted in this opinion as Sueur was initially recruited as his messenger before being later assigned to digging pits at Choeung Ek. However, the accused noted some “confusions” in Chhun Phal’s testimony.

Saom Meth sheds light on the special prison at S-21
Next at the stand was Saom Meth, a 51-year-old farmer wearing glasses. The clarity in his answers alluded to a certain level of education, which contrasted with that of the previous witness. He was assigned by the Angkar to the messengers unit of the “State prison at Dampeng, near Monivong [the main prison], which was then headed by Nath” and then relocated at S-21. Surprisingly, he dated the change of premises to 1977. There, he kept watch over prisoners outside, in particular at the S-21 “special prison.” Then, late 1978, he was transferred “by Him Huy” to Prey Sar, where he dug canals and built dykes for farming purposes, without knowing if he was then one of the detainees. Shortly before, his brother had been arrested and sent to S-21.

Kambol (Phnom Penh, Cambodia). 10/08/2009: The recent influx of visitors prompted the tribunal to buy new chairs for the tribunal canteen
©John Vink/ Magnum

The witness did not know what Duch’s role at S-21 was, but suspected he was the director. He shed light on the special prison, located South from the S-21 buildings, which has been only skimmed in this trial. It comprised of four buildings, as he remembered it, and its goal was to “detain high ranking cadres, sector or zone cadres, regiment or brigade commanders.” His deduction came from the observation that these individuals were placed in “separate cells” with “a guard assigned to keep watch for each of them.” Saom Meth had to be on duty at the door of detention cells. In this special area in S-21, only the prisoners who did not act obediently were cuffed in addition to having their ankles shackled.

Witness says he saw Duch hit a detainee
These important prisoners – about a hundred of them, according to the witness – could wash without their shackles being taken off, once or twice a week, with a bucket of water placed at their disposal. Their interrogations took place in their very cells and, in some circumstances, somewhere else. Thuy was one of the regular interrogators for these detainees. The witness recounted seeing him hit a prisoner with a stick until he started bleeding, before administering electric shocks to his toes and ear until he fainted. After inspecting the cell, Saom Meth left for lunch and when he returned, he saw Duch “at the wooden house.” “Did you see Duch hit the detainee?”, judge Ya Sakhon asked him. “Duch used a rattan stick to hit the detainee. He did not beat him a lot before I went my way and returned back home.” The witness said he saw Duch come “occasionally” to the special prison – “it was inevitable he had to go there,” to inspect the cells there, he added.

Judge Lavergne continued. “[To the investigators of the co-Investigating Judges,] you declared – you were asked what kind of torture the interrogators used on the prisoners and you said –: ‘they would hit the prisoners to make them talk, or they would electrocute them, rip off fingers and toes, push needles under their nails, wrap them in a plastic bag to suffocate them, sometimes they would strip the prisoners naked and electrocute them on their genitals or ears. I watched furtively from the window while I was on duty.’ […] Do you confirm what I have just read? Are those things you saw personally?” “Yes, that is correct. I apologise, I forgot to mention them.” Saom Meth added gravely: “What I said at the time is true. I did not exaggerate anything. I only told the truth and I won’t say anything that is not the truth.”

It is expected that Duch will contest at least several points of his testimony on the next day.

(translated from French by Ji-Sook Lee)