Family Ties: Khieu Samphan’s Relatives Testify in Case 002

So Socheat, alias Rin, Wife of Khieu Samphan

On Monday, June 10, 2013, witness testimony in Case 002 resumed at the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC). Firstly, defendant Khieu Samphan’s son-in-law Tun Soeun testified as a character witness for the accused, during which time his father-in-law’s attorneys quizzed him, followed by prosecutors and civil party lawyers. Then So Socheat, Khieu Samphan’s wife, was called to the stand, where she spoke about her experiences before and during the Democratic Kampuchea (DK) period, under questioning by her husband’s lawyers.

At the hearing were 300 people from Prey Veng province’s Kampong Trabek district, 400 people from Phnom Penh, 280 people from Takeo province and 20 civil parties from Kampot province. Khieu Samphan remained in the courtroom for the entire day, while co-accused Nuon Chea observed proceedings remotely from a holding cell.

Character Witness for Khieu Samphan Called to the Stand
Tun Soeun, the husband of Khieu Samphan’s daughter Khieu Ratana, entered the courtroom, informing Trial Chamber President Nil Nonn that he was a rice farmer in Pailin province and had three children. He confirmed that he was Khieu Samphan’s son-in-law, but was not related to other parties in Case 002, and he took an oath regarding questions that would be put to him about Nuon Chea[ii]. Mr. Soeun said staffers from the court’s Office of the Co-Investigating Judges (OCIJ) did not interview him.

Khieu Samphan Defense Leads Questioning of Tun Soeun

National Co-Lawyer for Khieu Samphan Kong Sam Onn began by questioning Mr. Soeun about his educational and professional background. The witness stated that starting in 1977 he studied Khmer literature for one and a half years at a primary school near Svay Por Pe pagoda[iii]. Then, he moved to K-3 in late 1978, where he spent three to four months learning to use a typewriter in a group supervised by ‘Phang’. Prior to 1975, Mr. Soeun said he lived with his parents in Bati district[iv]and initially joined a children’s unit with his older brother that formed part of the military in Kampong Speu province; in July or August 1976, children were selected to go to Phnom Penh and he moved to the capital at the age of 11. The witness recalled that he stayed at the National Assembly for two to three months with 20 people – they later separated – and was assigned to clean the compound around the building, cutting grass and tending to the garden.

Thereafter, Mr. Soeun testified that he went to K-8, the agricultural office headed by ‘Tang’ and located to the south of the current Russian Embassy towards the riverbank. He left K-8 in early 1977 to study at the primary school near Svay Por Pe pagoda with about 30 students, where Phang taught him. The witness recollected that he left the school around June or July 1978 and went to K-3, where he learned to type with about 10 people and where older students had different duties. “We looked at the magazine and tried to type following the words,” Mr. Soeun said, adding that Phang was also his supervisor at K-3. He told Mr. Sam Onn he was not given any documents to type, like messages or letters. Mr. Soeun stated that he was only at K-3 for a few months before leaving when the Vietnamese invaded.

Witness’ Connection to Khieu Samphan Discussed

Under questioning from the Khieu Samphan defense, Mr. Soeun recounted meeting Khieu Samphan in 1982 when he worked as a telegram decoder, delivered telegrams and received “credentials” at Malai[v]. “Normally, when other ambassadors or diplomats who would come to offer their credentials to the former king [Norodom Sihanouk], then I would go there,” he said, adding that he was under Phang’s supervision but travelled with Khieu Samphan on missions between 1982 and 1983. Mr. Soeun told the court he left Khieu Samphan to go on a mission to France in late 1983 then saw him again in 1989, at which time he was still in charge of delivering messages to Khieu Samphan. The witness recalled that he continued to deliver such messages until 1990, when he was assigned to work at the embassy in Peking; he stayed there until 1991 before returning to Cambodia to work in the same unit.

Mr. Soeun said he was married on November 9, 1994, when he was an ordinary combatant, and described Khieu Samphan as a “gentle” and “honest” person who was loved by many people. After 1979 the witness stated that Khieu Samphan was foreign affairs minister for “the factions”, primarily working overseas and communicating with people outside Cambodia, including Norodom Sihanouk and Son Sann[vi].

Pressed again about Khieu Samphan’s personal traits, Mr. Soeun testified that the defendant led a simple lifestyle, ate what he had and educated his children to be modest, law-abiding people. Mr. Soeun said he was close to Khieu Samphan from 1988 or 1989[vii]and lived with him “under the same roof”, then lived in his unit after 1994 – the year he was married – and no longer worked or associated with Khieu Samphan[viii]. The witness asserted that Khieu Samphan treated his children and in-laws equally and he respected him as his father-in-law. “Khieu Samphan has built good rapport with a lot of people in his neighborhood,” he stated. “No one dislikes him. No one hates him.” Mr. Soeun testified that he had not spoken with Khieu Samphan about DK and Khieu Samphan had tried to follow what Norodom Sihanouk wanted him to do. “He maintains his neutral position as that of the former prince,” he added.

Prosecution Quizzes Witness About DK Period

Under questioning from International Senior Assistant Co-Prosecutor Keith Raynor Mr. Soeun stated that he did not learn to decode telegrams at K-3, but during the tripartite period[ix], though Mr. Raynor quoted from a document provided by the defense saying that he had done so. The witness confirmed that the school he began studying at in early 1977 was the Sothearos School. When Mr. Raynor inquired if his teacher’s name was Norng Sophang[x], the witness replied that he knew his teacher only as ‘Phang’ and the pupils came from different provinces. Quoting from Mr. Sophang’s testimony on August 29, 2012, Mr. Raynor again asked if Mr. Soeun learned about decoding telegrams at the Sothearos School. The witness reiterated that they did not yet know the alphabet, and only the older children already acquainted with the alphabet studied decoding; he told the prosecutor he was not involved with decoding telegrams at K-3, but could read and write by the time he left the Sothearos School in July 1978.

Describing his work in the 1980s, Mr. Soeun testified that telegrams were sent to Khieu Samphan from foreign countries regarding embassy credentials from Samdech Ouv[xi]. The witness confirmed that he decoded telegrams in 1982, which he studied in Phang’s unit around 1981 or 1982, and he was still delivering telegrams to Khieu Samphan at the Kravanh mountain range[xii]near the Thai-Cambodian border in 1989[xiii].

There was a moment of confusion after Mr. Raynor asked Mr. Soeun if he recognized the name of a witness whose statement was put before him; eventually, Mr. Soeun said he did not know the name. Reading an excerpt from the statement, Mr. Raynor inquired if the telegram office at K-18 was the working office of Pol Pot and Khieu Samphan[xiv]. In response, Mr. Soeun emphasized that Pol Pot and Khieu Samphan were based in different offices at different locations, though he could not say where. He said he received instructions from Phang, who was not based at K-18. Mr. Soeun confirmed that Khieu Samphan wrote on telegrams, and his personal secretary Kan[xv]forwarded them elsewhere. He testified that Khieu Samphan’s office was far from Pol Pot’s office at the time.

At this juncture, Mr. Raynor read from a document issued by the office of the vice-president of DK in charge of foreign affairs dated July 15, 1987 – noting Mr. Soeun’s confirmation that Khieu Samphan headed foreign affairs – which stated that they made mistakes while trying to arrest and punish Vietnamese agents, resulting in the deaths of over 3,000 people between 1975 and 1978. The witness stated that Khieu Samphan never conveyed this to him. Citing the same document, Mr. Raynor inquired if Khieu Samphan ever compared the number of deaths under DK with car accidents in other countries. Mr. Soeun told the prosecutor Khieu Samphan never said this to him and, replying to another query, that he did not hear Khieu Samphan speak on the radio about wiping out enemies. Finally, Mr. Soeun responded that when he worked at K-3 no one disappeared or pointed out senior DK leaders and he did not know if any leaders lived there.

Brief Examination by Civil Party Lawyer

After the prosecution ended their examination, National Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer Pich Ang put further questions to the witness about his time at K-3. Mr. Soeun testified that there were 12 of them under Phang’s supervision at K-3, which was “a big place” with various sections of whose functions he was not aware. He related that the compound was roughly one square and there was a school to the north of it.

Under further questioning about Khieu Samphan’s personal characteristics, Mr. Soeun described the accused as an honest and not greedy person, who did not wish to become rich through illegal means or take action that could “destroy the nation”. He elaborated as follows:

He did not want to enjoy any excessive power or property. He only accept[ed] what he was given and he was loyal to the nation, and he did not have any other ambition besides serving the nation … What I said is related to his character after 1979 – that is, after the time that I worked with him and lived with him. Because after that, I observed that he was an honest person, not an ambitious person.

Mr. Soeun recollected that after the DK period, Khieu Samphan communicated with diplomats, and met with embassy representatives every year. Following this response, the civil party lawyers finished posing their questions, and the defense team for Nuon Chea announced that they would not examine the witness. Mr. Soeun’s testimony before the ECCC concluded.

Khieu Samphan’s Wife So Socheat Called to the Stand

After Mr. Soeun left the courtroom, Khieu Samphan’s wife So Socheat, alias Rin, was called to the stand. The 62-year-old told President Nonn she was a housewife living in Phnom Penh and had four children. President Nonn reminded the witness that as Khieu Samphan’s wife, according to the ECCC internal rules, she was not required to take the oath[xvi]. However in response to President Nonn, Mrs. Socheat affirmed that she had no relationship to Nuon Chea or other parties to the proceedings and had taken the oath regarding her testimony on Nuon Chea. She told the chamber she had not spoken to OCIJ.

Khieu Samphan’s Defense Initiates Questioning of So Socheat

Firstly, International Co-Lawyer for Khieu Samphan Arthur Vercken asked Mrs. Socheat about her social and family background. Mrs. Socheat replied that she was born in Preah Vihear province’s Rovieng district – the sixth of nine siblings – where her parents were farmers; she quit school in 1969 at the age of 18 and helped her parents with farming for about a year. The witness stated that after the 1970 coup d’état it became difficult to cultivate rice because of the fighting and bombing. In mid-1970, Mrs. Socheat recalled that a senior woman named Yim gathered some men and women in the village and offered “educational sessions”, and they were asked to enter the jungle. The witness testified that they were told during the study sessions that Prince Norodom Sihanouk was topped in the coup and they had to engage in revolution to fight against General Lon Nol’s government and regain independence.

Mrs. Socheat said she joined the revolutionary movement, within which women’s and other groups – like transportation and messengers – were created. She told the court she was a village medic for about three or four months before the end of 1970; she was provided training by local doctors and remained living with her parents. The witness stated that during this time she cared for and distributed modern medicine to people who had malaria, diarrhea and high temperatures. Following this period, Mrs. Socheat said she joined a small group of people and continued her medical work.

So Socheat’s First Contact with Khieu Samphan

Under questioning about her first encounter with Khieu Samphan, Mrs. Socheat recalled that Yim made an announcement in about mid-1971 asking people to participate in the resistance by entering the jungle. She testified that she did not know much at the time, but she was aware of the war, the Lon Nol government and the “American imperialists”, and knew that to defeat them they had to join the resistance movement. However, Mrs. Socheat emphasized that they were not forced to join, and in about mid-to-late 1971 two people led some 200 people on foot from Rovieng into the forest, to a village called Trapaing Them[xvii]near Chinit Lake[xviii]. They rested for about three days, before a messenger arrived and they followed him on foot across Chinit Lake, reaching an area they were told was the “place of the leaders”, Mrs. Socheat recollected.

The witness said she was asked to cook and assist the medical staff and, one day, she carried the meal from the kitchen to the dining table, where she saw Pol Pot, Nuon Chea and Khieu Samphan, whom she knew at that time only as ‘Brother Hem’[xix]. Mrs. Socheat described the kitchen as being in the forest, surrounded by thick trees with a traditional stove. Wooden tables were placed in the dining area so that people faced each other during meals, which were eaten in a small, thatched wooden house with no walls, she added.

Pressed for detail about her introduction to Khieu Samphan, Mrs. Socheat testified that she they did not get to know one another immediately, but after about three or four months, Yim came and told her Comrade Hem wished to marry her. The witness said she did not object to the proposal at the time, but asked for time to consider it and Yim approached her again for an answer about six months later. Mrs. Socheat described how Khieu Samphan would sometimes come to the kitchen and help her with her work, and she asked him to sort the beans. She added:

I had to study him because I knew that he was not a very young man at that time. I learned that he was an intellectual and educated person, and gentle. And every good thing about him was told to me and I had to also study his conduct and activities to confirm such things. So after that, I would see him time and again. He came to help me peel the garlic and other kitchen tasks during his free time and that was the time I could also verify his personality. And about a half year later, Yim came and asked me to confirm because she said that Comrade Hem would like to know this immediately. And she also told me that it was I who had to make my own decision, and I told her that I had been in the resistance for some time … and I understood him to be the right man, proper man, so I finally decided to tie the knot.

After about a month or two, Mrs. Socheat said they were married on December 25, 1972[xx], in a modest and simple ceremony, with ordinary food and no traditional music or Buddhist monks. She added that when she married ‘Hem’ she did not know his name was Khieu Samphan or his role in the resistance movement, but was told by Yim that he was an intellectual and “clean”. Mrs. Socheat told the court the couple lived together after their marriage, but had to change locations every month, because they could not risk being in one place or their location could be compromised. “Life in the jungle was very hard because we did not have proper house,” she said, adding that she continued to work in the kitchen after their marriage.

When asked about Khieu Samphan’s activities after their marriage, Mrs. Socheat replied that she saw her husband sitting at a bamboo table and writing, but did not know what he wrote. She recalled that she only learned that her husband’s name was Khieu Samphan when they received Samdech Sihanouk in 1973 and people laughed her for not having known before.

So Socheat Speaks About Khieu Samphan’s Traits

Quizzed by Mr. Vercken about Khieu Samphan’s strengths and weaknesses, Mrs. Socheat testified that her husband has good qualities – he is patient, gentle and humble and does everything by himself. She continued:

He has never done anything to hurt me mentally. He, on the contrary, has helped me greatly during the difficult time. In particular … he helped during the time when I gave birth to our first child. And upon returning from China, he had to spend about a month being close to me, to help take good care of our first child and he remained with us all along. And his character does not show that he could be a person holding senior position. He was very humble and modest.

In response to queries from Mr. Vercken, Mrs. Socheat said their first child was born on May 4, 1974, and Cambodian men did not usually exhibit such behavior. “That on top of other things makes me respect and love him dearly,” she affirmed.

Witness Testifies About Movement Just Before and After the Fall of Phnom Penh

The witness recalled that they had to remain in the jungle until Phnom Penh was liberated; before the liberation they stayed at K-17, before moving to B-20 and then to Meak office[xxi]a few months later shortly after she had given birth to her first child. About 10 or 15 days before the liberation, Mrs. Socheat recollected that Khieu Samphan left her because the liberation was close and she returned to B-17 with her child[xxii]. The witness testified that a week after Phnom Penh was liberated she spent the night in Sdok Tao[xxiii], and then had to leave her one-year-old child with So Hong’s[xxiv]spouse even though she was still breastfeeding. Mrs. Socheat said she reached the train station in Phnom Penh, where she had to cook with four or five other women.

After leaving the railway station where she stayed for a week or so, Mrs. Socheat stated that she went to K-2, where she met Khieu Samphan and rested for perhaps one day. Thereafter, the witness described moving to the Silver Pagoda[xxv], where stayed in the kitchen for some months until mid- or late 1975 without Khieu Samphan. Then, Mrs. Socheat recollected that she worked in the kitchen at K-1 – located on the Bassac River – and stayed with her husband and son in his room with no bed, mattress or pillow. They slept on a mat on the floor using a bag of clothes as a pillow, she told the court. K-1 was the leaders’ workplace and was housed in a huge compound, Mrs. Socheat said, adding that Pol Pot and Nuon Chea lived there, among others. She said food was not abundant – usually they had soup and a fried dish – and later most of the leaders went to K-3, including Khieu Samphan, who left in late 1975 or early 1976 when she was pregnant with her second child. Mrs. Socheat recalled that she left for K-3 about two or three months after her husband, after giving birth to her second child.

Defense Lawyer Returns to So Socheat’s Time in the forest

Turning back to Mrs. Socheat’s years in the jungle, Mr. Vercken inquired if Khieu Samphan was present during the birth of her first child. The witness answered that he was in China but returned about a month later and remained with her for four to five months – in Office 17, B-20 and Meak office. She described how Khieu Samphan helped to wash nappies, brought her food for three months after she gave birth and requested that she not walk places so that she could avoid back pain or health problems when she grew older. Mrs. Socheat told the court that he helped her to take good care of their child and fetched the water himself.

So Socheat’s Experiences at K-1 and K-3

When asked why she remained at K-1 for a time before joining Khieu Samphan at K-3, she replied that she was not sure because the office arranged it. Detailing their living conditions at K-3, Mrs. Socheat recalled that Khieu Samphan lived in a wooden house with no door and broken steps and she initially did not live with him because the house was in such a poor condition; she told him at the time that she needed to live with Nuon Chea’s wife who had a proper house near the kitchen. The witness said that a few months later, Pol Pot ordered a house to be built for them. She added that life was difficult and they had insufficient food – some water, but not enough rice, and they sometimes had to eat bread and had “very modest Khmer soup”. Mrs. Socheat stated that the house was decent and made of brick, but had no proper table, bed or mattress and they had to sleep on the floor; crying, she told the court her daughter was “stuffy” in the room and could not sleep properly. The witness said they requested a bed, because it was too warm to “sleep on the floor directly” and were given a bamboo bed.

My daughter felt that the room was too warm for her; she kept crying all night. Then I made a request for a kind of cradle where she could sleep. And I had to make her sleep and my husband would help carry her until she fell asleep, and most of the time it was very late at night … it was sometimes in the morning before we could go to bed, because we had to make our daughter go to bed first. Life was very difficult. Life was not better in Phnom Penh than what we experienced in the jungle.

Mr. Vercken inquired about the fate of Mrs. Socheat’s first child, to which the witness replied that her son was asked to be in the children’s unit when he was three years old. Though she did not want him to go, it was compulsory, she told the court. “Once in a while, I would ask for permission to have my son be brought to us so that we can be with him,” Mrs. Socheat said. “He would never want to return, but we had no choice.” She asserted that the office – “the upper level” – made such decisions. Mrs. Socheat recalled that Pol Pot, Nuon Chea, Ieng Sary and his wife, Son Sen and his wife, Vorn Vet and others left K-3 after four or five months, and only Khieu Samphan remained – they went to their own offices or ministries and Pol Pot and Nuon Chea went to K-1. Mrs. Socheat recounted that she and Khieu Samphan remained at K-3 until the arrival of Vietnamese troops, where she cooked and looked after her children.

Under questioning about what Khieu Samphan did all day, Mrs. Socheat testified that he would cuddle his daughter and go to his workplace and she did not know the nature of his work. However, the witness stated that her daughter went to her father’s workplace and heard people speaking on the phone at his office, to people who rang to request goods to be delivered to the bases. Mrs. Socheat told the court she asked people who worked there and was told it was a warehouse where goods were stored to be delivered to the bases, such as salt, rice, clothing and cooking utensils. Mrs. Socheat said he did not go out from K-3 frequently, but occasionally went to K-1 and would usually return at mealtimes. When asked by Mr. Vercken how Khieu Samphan travelled, Mrs. Socheat recollected that he used a modest vehicle and had no bodyguards. After the leaders left K-3 it was quiet and there was only herself, Khieu Samphan, four other workers, herself, another woman and perhaps some guards outside.

So Socheat Describes Impending Arrival of Vietnamese Troops

Moving to the final stages of the DK period, Mr. Vercken queried when Mrs. Socheat left Phnom Penh. She responded that she left shortly after giving birth to another child[xxvi], when Khieu Samphan picked her up and put on a train with her other two children, eventually disembarking when the tracks ended and taken by So Hong to Battambang province. Mrs. Socheat said she had a fever and fell unconscious, before waking up the next morning and continuing to Svay[xxvii]and fleeing on foot to the border upon the arrival of the Vietnamese. “My young son who was seven months died at the border, and during this period of time I did not meet him[xxviii]- even when my child died, he was not there,” she testified. Mrs. Socheat confirmed to Mr. Vercken that she saw Doeun at K-3, but he did not stay permanently and she never spoke to him.

Khieu Samphan’s Wife Explains Reason for Testifying

Next, Mr. Vercken inquired why Mrs. Socheat had come to speak at the tribunal. She responded that she wished to show the chamber that she knew her husband well, that he was kind, gentle and befriended anyone. Despite their difficulties in the jungle, he was an honest person and she trusted him. Mrs. Socheat declared:

Despite all the charges against him, I solemnly declare as his wife that what I see is different is from what other people might see. I went through all the difficulties, all the hard living conditions in the jungle; sometimes we had to flee, we had to crawl until the time we could have a house after the liberation. It was not an easy life, like some people might say. If my husband is compared to other men, to me he is the best. He is a man of virtue, of high morality; he never upset me by any act and he is very faithful. He has no privileges in anything. We did not have anything expensive in the house. Even while other leaders had good cars, nice houses – my husband never enjoyed that kind of life. And that’s the kind of trust that I have placed upon my husband. He’s not a cruel person, he’s not a murderer, not the one who went around making any arrest, and I put my life on that before you.

Mrs. Socheat told the court she and Khieu Samphan went through much misery with their children during the DK period and he understood her struggle as a woman with young children. The witness said:

I understand that the victims who were evacuated, who had to work hard at the worksites, who were starved, who were deprived of food and water. I went through the same difficulty, and why it happened, and I’d like your honors to look through all that. And once again, I can say with confidence before your honors that my husband is an honest person. He’s not the one who committed any degrading act or who was greedy for rank or promotion. He’s not that kind of person. He has lived an ordinary life even before 1975, after the liberation of 1975, as I have stated before you your honors, and even after the arrival of the Vietnamese, I had not met him even for once until 1982 or 1983. And I only met him briefly and then we separated again

After Mr. Vercken asked the witness what income she lived on today, Mr. Raynor objected that the question was irrelevant. Though Mr. Verkcen argued that it was important for the chamber to know how the person closest to Khieu Samphan lives today, the objection was sustained.

President Nonn adjourned the hearing. Proceedings in Case 002 are set to resume on Tuesday, June 11, 2013, at 9 a.m., with further questioning of Mrs. Socheat and another witness.