Kambol (Phnom Penh, Cambodia). Faced with justice, has Duch changed? The accused asked the question himself©John Vink/ Magnum (file picture: 01-04-2009)
Ka-set
http://cambodia.ka-set.info
By Stéphanie Gée
29-06-2009
Thursday June 25th, in one morning, the co-Prosecutors and civil party lawyers interrogated Duch on the functioning of the re-education camp of Prey Sar, also called S-24. The efficiency can be credited to a decision by the judges to limit the speaking time allocated to each party and the president’s direction of the debates. However, the examination of S-24 ended with the feeling that Duch was far from having disclosed everything on the subject.
Smashing children to prevent revenge
What was the difference between S-24 and the other cooperatives in Democratic Kampuchea?, the Cambodian co-Prosecutor asked Duch. “[They] were similar in several ways, but they differed in the sense that S-24 aimed to gather people who had committed offences while the other cooperatives were organised on the basis of class origin. Also, in S-24, most of the elements were CPK [Communisty Party of Kampuchea] fighters.” “Why were children killed?” The accused gave two reasons: “The CPK was afraid that children might take revenge otherwise” and it did not want to feed them, it would have been too costly to keep them.
A rather exonerating interrogation by the prosecution
It was then the turn of his international’s colleague to ask questions. “So, you did not decide whether they [the detainees in S-24] were going to live or die?” Duch answered, “In principle, I was responsible for the decisions, although I did not take them personally. As a matter of fact, the decision was taken by other people who were accountable to me and the party.” “You delegated your power to Hor [his deputy in S-21] and Huy [his deputy in charge of S-24] and you discovered only later that detainees [of Prey Sar] were sent to S-21, didn’t you?” “Yes, I did. It is the right interpretation.”
As for the people being sent directly from S-24 to the execution site of Choeung Ek, this was organised on the basis of decisions taken by Hor and “you only found out about it later. Is that correct?”, William Smith continued. “It is fundamentally correct,” Duch agreed. “I genuinely trusted Hor and Huy. They had never allowed anyone to escape.” “If you wanted to prevent Hor and Huy from doing something, could you do so?” “I had total authority. I could put an end to anything.” “It was absolutely impossible for you to take care of everything, wasn’t it?”, continued the co-Prosecutor, who seemed to exonerate the accused with his questions. “Yes, it was,” Duch confirmed. He acknowledged he had delegated large powers to his two deputies, as he was too occupied, particularly with the annotations on the confessions of the prisoners in S-21.
“There was a permanent order to Hor and Huy to implement this policy in Prey Sar, wasn’t there?” Duch said he did not understand the meaning of the co-Prosecutor’s question. “I just looked at the courtroom and it seems that you are not the only one.” William Smith therefore rephrased his question: was it enough to give the order only once for them to understand they had this power? The accused agreed and explained he did not need to repeat his orders.
In his conclusion, William Smith declared unexpectedly to the accused: “We appreciate your honesty and clarity.”
“I am still a policeman”
The floor went to the civil party lawyers. Answering their questions, Duch recalled that “back then, we didn’t think the CPK was going to be defeated. So, I did what I was asked to do.” Regarding his flight from Phnom Penh on January 7th 1979, he stated: “As human beings, we were not cruel enough not to recognise the crimes. But back then, we told ourselves that it was the police’s work and it had to be done. But I am still a policeman and I am responsible before History. I will tell all I remember and I will not put the blame on the government like I did in the past.”
Duch spared for his loyalty to his superiors
Alain Werner took over from his Cambodian colleague. Each civil party group was given 15 minutes. “On my Swiss watch, I have five and a half minutes left.” He recalled that during the pre-trial investigation, Duch said he had wanted to protect his brother-in-law when the latter was arrested. Finally, Nuon Chea sent him to S-21. The lawyer stated the rule required that when one person was sent to S-21, his or her family followed. Hence his question: “How do you explain that nothing happened to you when your brother-in-law was sent to S-21?” Still, Duch had an answer for everything: “In the eyes of the CPK, I was the main person in my family. If I had been arrested, none of my relatives would have been spared. But my brother-in-law was an ordinary family member.”
The co-lawyer for civil party group 1 summarised the hypothesis of the accused: “Whatever the purges, the deportations, whatever your involvement, […], nothing ever happened to you. You were untouchable because you were protected by Son Sen and Nuon Chea, who loved your zeal and the lists of enemies you provided them.” Duch did not contest. “I survived because of that. In hindsight, the important thing is that I was loyal and totally honest with them and they could see it with their own eyes. I was also monitored and followed, because they felt a part of mistrust towards me.”
“What was done was wrong”
That the individuals sent to Prey Sar may represent a danger for the regime, Duch said he believed it only “to some extent, let’s say 10%.” He did not deny the “pain and sufferings” inflicted upon these detainees. Later, he claimed he had “personally blamed one person.” “At the start of the trial, I said Pol Pot applied the political line” because he had hundreds of thousands of Cambodians behind him. “The party and its members are those responsible. It must be recognised that what was done was wrong. And for S-21 specifically, I am the one who committed the crimes and who bears the responsibility. As for the superiors, they decided a line that was wrong, but I was myself accountable to the party and I am today responsible for what was done before the Extraordinary Chambers.”
From Kang Guek Eav to Duch
When his Cambodian co-lawyer interrogated him on the limited freedom of move under Democratic Kampuchea, the accused assured it was only possible to travel “upon order,” “for a mission,” and “everyone had to follow this rule.”
“What method could one use to re-educate oneself to be a new person?”, Kar Savuth asked him. “I intended to change from an ordinary person to a communist person,” Duch stated. In 1964, during his re-education, through the CPK, he “became a new Duch [his revolutionary name], different from Kang Guek Eav, the mathematics teacher in Skuon.” Then, he explained that gradually, his emotions and awareness of the crimes started to evolve. “From 1973, I was shocked and upset by the loss of human lives. I wanted to leave. I do not want to pretend that I suffered. I am inclined to say I am responsible for the loss of these souls and I pray for them. When we met at the military court [with Kar Savuth], I could blame the government because I was a policeman. But now, here, before the ECCC, we have been through the questions of the co-Investigating Judges and now those of the Trial Chamber. Do you see me as a new person? I bow to the Cambodian people.”
When the hearings resume on Monday June 29th, S-21 survivors will finally start to testify, after nine weeks of trial. A highly anticipated moment.
