Prosecution Grills Khieu Samphan’s Wife in Extended Cross-Examination

Khieu Samphan and Ieng Sary as identified by So Socheat. Source: Documentation Center of Cambodia

So Socheat, alias Rin, the wife of defendant Khieu Samphan, continued her testimony in Case 002 at the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) on Tuesday, June 11, 2013. The 62-year-old responded to questions from the chamber and the prosecution about events before, during and after the Democratic Kampuchea (DK) period in Cambodia.

On June 11, 2013, 216 young people from Phnom Penh and 287 people from Kampong Thom province attended the hearing. Defendant Khieu Samphan remained in the courtroom for the entire day, while co-accused Nuon Chea observed proceedings remotely from a holding cell.

So Socheat Resumes Her Testimony

Firstly, Trial Chamber Judge Jean-Marc Lavergne inquired about the name ‘Si Lang’, attributed to Khieu Samphan on their family registration certificate, or ‘family book’. Mrs. Socheat confirmed that it was a name used by Khieu Samphan’s siblings and relatives. She also affirmed that her son – her first child – was born on May 4, 1974, despite his birthday being listed as June 6, 1974, on the certificate. When asked about her prior testimony that her eldest son was sent to a children’s unit at age 3, Mrs. Socheat reiterated that the office supervisors made the decision and they could not refuse. The witness said she requested their child return for a week, and he had to go back after that period lapsed so that she could work[ii].

On the afternoon of January 6, 1979, Mrs. Socheat recalled that her son was at the children’s center and she picked him up before leaving the city. She confirmed that her second child, a daughter, was born on September 13, 1976. Referring to Mrs. Socheat’s earlier testimony, Judge Lavergne queried how much her daughter – whom the witness said went to Khieu Samphan’s workplace at K-3 – was able to tell her about Khieu Samphan’s work during the DK period given that she was so young at the time[iii]. After a brief period of confusion, Mrs. Socheat stated that Khieu Samphan told her that after receiving instructions, he would ask staff to prepare goods for people at the base, though the goods themselves were stored at a warehouse. She confirmed to Judge Lavergne that she had another daughter in 1984 and another son in 1987; she also gave birth to a son at the start of 1979 who died aged seven months.

Judge Lavergne Returns to So Socheat’s Movements pre-1975

In response to queries from Judge Lavergne, Mrs. Socheat verified that the village she originated from in Preah Vihear province was part of Sector 103 during the DK period and revolutionary forces liberated the area sometime in 1970, after the coup d’état. She said no one was leaving Rovieng district[iv]at the time, but she did not know if Rovieng town was evacuated[v], and there were still monks in the pagodas. When asked if cooperatives were established by the time she entered the jungle, Mrs. Socheat replied that they had not and she did not know when they first emerged, as she was only a cook at the time[vi]and she did not know where the food she cooked with came from.

The place where the leaders lived on the banks of the Chinit River was called ‘Chinit office’ but she did not know the code number, while B-17 was located in Samroang village in Kampong Cham province’s Stung Trang district, she told the judge. Mrs. Socheat verified that meals were eaten communally at the time. Quizzed by Judge Lavergne on her discussions with Khieu Samphan the witness testified that her husband never spoke about the leadership of the revolutionary forces, only personal matters. “The rationale behind our revolutionary commitment was to attack the imperialist power and the aggressors, in order to liberate our country, and nothing else other than what I have described was discussed,” Mrs. Socheat affirmed. She agreed that discipline and proper behavior were important, and said she did not know if Khieu Samphan voiced any concerns.

At this juncture, Judge Lavergne inquired when Mrs. Socheat became aware that Khieu Samphan held key positions, such as Vice Prime Minister of the Royal Government of National Union of Kampuchea (GRUNK) and commander-in-chief of the revolutionary armed forces. The witness responded that she never knew her husband held such posts – “he did not tell me” – and people around her at the time considered him an intellectual who did not hold an important position. After Judge Lavergne asked whether anybody who welcomed Norodom Sihanouk in the liberated zone in 1973 could be considered “an ordinary person”, Mrs. Socheat reiterated that Khieu Samphan’s position then was not important and he was not a senior leader. Appearing frustrated, Judge Lavergne asked who welcomed the former king, and the witness responded that Pol Pot and Khieu Samphan were present, but she did not know who was the leader of that “front”. She recollected that she ran the kitchen and prepared food and rooms, but did not accompany them. Mrs. Socheat said she did not bother to ask Khieu Samphan about his work and had never heard of the ‘seven super traitors’[vii].

Mrs. Socheat confirmed that she went to meet Khieu Samphan at Sdok Tao[viii]village, where they stayed overnight, about a week after the fall of Phnom Penh. She stated that she did not immediately know the city had been evacuated, and only realized upon her arrival at the train station when she noticed that everything was quiet. When asked if Khieu Samphan spoke about what happened to his family in Phnom Penh, Mrs. Socheat responded that after they had been in Phnom Penh for over a year he spoke with some concern about his family members who were evacuated, but told her they should be fine because they would be given shelter.

So Socheat’s Life in Phnom Penh During DK Period

Pressed for further information about her life in Phnom Penh, Mrs. Socheat affirmed that food shortage was not a big problem for her, the place where she lived was quiet and everyone had the same meals. She told the judge that she did not believe her husband had “delicious meals” at the time and he did not speak to her about banquets.

There was a delay in putting some photographs on the screen at Judge Lavergne’s request, so he inquired if Mrs. Socheat ever visited the former house of Khieu Samphan’s family. She replied that she did not know where the house was situated. Judge Lavergne cited the written record of an interview with Khieu Samphan’s driver Leng Choeung[ix]as saying he often went with Khieu Samphan to see his mother in a house to which he and his wife Rin had the keys. Mrs. Socheat said Choeung was referring to the house prepared for them at K-3 after the liberation of Phnom Penh and confirmed that she had visited her mother-in-law[x]. She told the judge that her mother-in-law left Phnom Penh before the evacuation and met with Khieu Samphan at ‘17’[xi], after Mrs. Socheat delivered her child. The witness testified that her husband said his mother went to look for him, appearing to have found him through people who knew them[xii]. Mrs. Socheat described going only to places near where she stayed in Phnom Penh during the DK period – to visit her mother-in-law or K-1 – and denied she had ever traveled with her husband to rural areas.

Contemporaneous Photographs Presented to Witness

Several black-and-white photographs were placed on the screen. The first depicted six men standing in a semi-circle around a table, during what Judge Lavergne said appeared to be a banquet. The witness identified Khieu Samphan and Ieng Sary in the image. The second photograph showed five men in a room, with several sitting on sofas and chairs; Mrs. Socheat identified her husband and a man she believed to be Nuon Chea. Then a third photograph showed three men standing together, including two identified by the witness as Khieu Samphan and Ieng Sary, both of whom were carrying glasses. The final photograph showed four men, including Khieu Samphan and Ieng Sary, who appeared to be toasting with glasses. When asked if she wished to revise her statement that her husband did not attend banquets or eat lavish meals, Mrs. Socheat stood by her comments and remarked that she did not know about the parties.

Senior Khmer Rouge leaders at an apparent banquet. Source: Documentation Center of Cambodia

Next, Judge Lavergne sought information about the working environment in K-1 and K-3. The witness replied that it was normal and nobody was fearful[xiii]. The judge read an extract from Khieu Samphan’s book[xiv]in which he described Standing Committee meetings as comparable to gatherings of friends or family that often took on a jovial atmosphere. Mrs. Socheat informed the judge that Khieu Samphan sometimes related jokes he had heard upon returning home from work. Judge Lavergne quoted a subsequent excerpt in which the defendant wrote that even after the arrest of a Central Committee member and later a Standing Committee member, trust in Pol Pot did not seem to diminish and each disappearance seemed to be perceived as unique and, perhaps to some, justified. Under questioning Mrs. Socheat recollected that Khieu Samphan told her his close friends Hu Nim and Hou Youn should not have disappeared.

So Socheat’s Family During the DK Era

Turning to Mrs. Socheat’s family, Judge Lavergne inquired if she was ever informed about purges in Sector 103 – from which she originated – and that members of her family were arrested and mistreated. The witness answered that she only learned about the arrest of her family members later and they were released in 1978 just before the Vietnamese arrived. Mrs. Socheat recalled that one of her detained relatives previously worked at K-1 and she was told that her elder relative was arrested and placed at Takhmao[xv]. She learned that her parents, elder and younger brothers and cousins were arrested. She verified the accuracy of a passage in her husband’s book[xvi]that described her breaking down in tears upon hearing the atrocities committed against her brothers, relatives and other people. When asked if Khieu Samphan intervened to release her family members, Mrs. Socheat responded that he did not intervene; her family members were released from among a group in Siem Reap and she found some of them when she went to Takhmao. She added that Khieu Samphan said he did not know about the poor treatment of people in Siem Reap and she told him what she heard from her family members[xvii].

Judge Lavergne inquired if Mrs. Socheat heard about the arrests of Chou Chet, Koy Thuon, Pang, Doeun or Thiv Ol[xviii]when she was at K-1 and K-3. The witness responded that she did not know about the aforementioned people. She affirmed that they spoke in the office about being vigilant and maintaining secrecy, because there were enemies attempting to destroy them.

Prosecution Begins Cross-examination of So Socheat

Rising from his seat after Judge Lavergne posed his final question, International Senior Assistant Co-Prosecutor Keith Raynor sought further detail about Mrs. Socheat’s conversation with her husband on the disappearances of Hou Youn and Hu Nim. The witness testified that it occurred after the Vietnamese had arrived in Phnom Penh, when they heard about mass arrests and “killings”. She stated that Khieu Samphan did not tell her who ordered the arrests of Hou Youn and Hu Nim and reiterated that he said they should not have been arrested.

As he told me, they came from the hardship together, and that now they disappeared. So he did not understand what they did, why they disappeared. That was all he told me, and I myself did not know about that either.

Mrs. Socheat confirmed that Hou Youn and Hu Nim were intellectuals and were close to her husband before 1975, but he did not tell her why they were arrested. She recalled that Khieu Samphan had spoke to her in general terms since 1979, saying that people who were evacuated were not properly treated and he was horrified to hear that people were starved. “He told me that these people … had nothing to do with CIA, why did they have to undergo this starvation?” she recollected. Mr. Raynor inquired why Khieu Samphan never mentioned to Stephen Heder in a 1981 interview that Hou Youn and Hu Nim were arrested and disappeared. Mrs. Socheat replied that Khieu Samphan only answered the questions she asked him and did not elaborate further. The witness told Mr. Raynor that Khieu Samphan never mentioned a letter Hu Nim wrote to him saying that he was arrested on April 10, 1977.

After the prosecutor asked why Hu Nim might have written such a letter, National Co-Lawyer for Khieu Samphan Kong Sam Onn objected that the question invited the witness to speculate. Despite Mr. Raynor’s argument that contact between the three men prior to 1975 meant there was an evidentiary foundation for the question and it would not invite speculation, the objection was sustained. Then Mr. Raynor mentioned a Standing Committee meeting on March 8, 1976, attended by both Khieu Samphan and Comrade Phos, or Hu Nim. Mrs. Socheat emphasized that she was a housewife at the time, not a politician. She told the prosecutor she did not hear Khieu Samphan give a speech on April 15, 1977 – five days after Hu Nim’s arrest – in which he spoke about wiping out and suppressing enemies, and did not know where he broadcast from after April 17, 1975.

Under questioning from Mr. Raynor about whether she and her husband spoke about “revolutionary vigilance” during the DK period, Mrs. Socheat responded that they did not have such talks as they had different roles, and at the time there was “discipline” regarding discussion of other peoples’ business. “I never discussed revolutionary vigilance with Khieu Samphan personally, but it was the discipline in the workplace that everyone had to be vigilant,” the witness remarked. When asked if she was changing her answers when she realized she had made a mistake, Mrs. Socheat requested that she be informed if she had made erroneous statements. She reiterated that everyone had to be vigilant within her workplace, but she had never broached the subject with Khieu Samphan.

Questions Posed about Khieu Samphan “Family Book”

Turning to another topic, Mr. Raynor inquired if the ‘family book’ had to be completed when Mrs. Socheat and her family moved house. After some apparent confusion over the question, Mrs. Socheat confirmed that when family moved papers had to be handed to a local registrar, with every person over the age of 18 required to provide documentation. Following several queries along these lines, Mr. Sam Onn suggested that the prosecutor should summon a commune registrar officer to testify if he wished to know about the family registration procedure in Cambodia, and argued that the question was irrelevant to the hearing. Mr. Raynor countered that the query went to the date of birth of Mrs. Socheat’s son Khieu Udam – one of the first issues Judge Lavergne raised – and was relevant because Mrs. Socheat testified that the date was May 4, 1974, while the document recorded it as June 6, 1974. The objection was overruled.

Pressed again about the procedure for registration, Mrs. Socheat commented that there was no witness and the commune clerk and registrar told her if she could not recall the date of her first child well, she could simply write an “indicative date”. Mrs. Socheat said they only prepared birth certificates for her other children in the last few years and followed the information in their identification cards. He was born on May 4, 1974[xix], she added[xx].

After the lunch break, International Co-Lawyer for Khieu Samphan Arthur Vercken briefly remarked that in the Khmer version of the ‘family book’ their daughter Khieu Ratana’s birthday was listed as March 13, 1976, but the French translation read September 19, 1976. Allotted extra time before the adjournment, Mr. Raynor returned to the process of registration. Mrs. Socheat stated that at the time she did not recall her son’s birth date and recorded that which was written on his identification card[xxi].

So Socheat’s Path to Becoming a Witness

Moving on to a different subject Mr. Raynor commented that on February 21, 2011, Khieu Samphan’s legal team proposed Mrs. Socheat as a witness, and inquired if she had told the defense team her version of events before coming to testify. The witness answered by saying that she had not told the lawyers anything about her statement before the court and they had not prepared a document for her to thumbprint and sign. “I actually drafted my personal background by myself and I tried to memorize it … my background through various stages before 1975, then the period between 1975 to 1979,” she testified. Mrs. Socheat then confirmed that she had met her husband’s lawyers while he was in detention and asked them about the trial’s progress. Before her court appearance she met defense counsel once around February to speak about Khieu Samphan’s character, she recounted. In response to a query from Mr. Raynor, Mrs. Socheat said she only discussed senior leaders leaving K-3 in court and not with Khieu Samphan’s lawyers.

Quizzed about her visits to her husband, Mrs. Socheat related that before the constant hearings she visited him at least once a week, and sometimes two or three times a week. She confirmed that her husband knew about all of the leaders leaving K-3, but she did not rely on him for that information.

So Socheat’s Visit to Ta Soth and Sa Siek

Switching topics, Mr. Raynor queried whether Mrs. Socheat visited Ta Soth[xxii]and Sa Siek[xxiii]on March 14, 2010. The witness replied that she could not recall the date, but at one point she went to a relative’s wedding in Samlaut[xxiv]and, along with her nephew, she later visited some people she knew in the area. Mrs. Socheat recounted that she went to Ta Soth’s house, but only Sa Siek was there, whom she did not know very well. She recalled that Sa Siek told her people had come “ask” Ta Soth and they were afraid, but she told Sa Siek to tell Ta Soth to speak the truth[xxv]. When asked if she discussed Khieu Samphan’s connection to the Ministry of Propaganda and Prek Kdam[xxvi], Mrs. Socheat answered that Sa Siek spoke about her journey through Prek Kdam after Phnom Penh was liberated. The witness asserted that Sa Siek spoke of her own free will.

At this juncture, Mr. Raynor quoted Sa Siek’s testimony on August 16, 2012, as saying that Mrs. Socheat had inquired whether Khieu Samphan used to go to Prek Kdam and the propaganda ministry. The witness replied that she wanted to ask Ta Soth if he had been to Prek Kdam because she was trying to recall the events. Mr. Raynor recited Sa Siek’s testimony as saying that Mrs. Socheat asked her if Ta Soth saw Khieu Samphan at Prek Kdam or the Ministry of Propaganda because Khieu Samphan could not remember if he was there or not. Mrs. Socheat told the prosecutor that she did not visit Sa Siek for that reason. “I did not actually imagine at the time that these small, minor things would come today in court that I had to testify – that’s why I did not pay attention to each detail,” she added. “I simply went there to visit her and then I simply asked her a question.”

Cross-Examination Returns to Witness’ Family

At this juncture, Mr. Raynor quoted at length from Meas Voeun’s testimony[xxvii]about members of Mrs. Socheat’s family imprisoned in Siem Reap, his reporting of this information to Khieu Samphan and the subsequent release of her sister Yiet while other people remained in detention. When asked if she knew anything about Meas Voeun’s releasing her sister from prison, Mrs. Socheat replied that she knew nothing of what the prosecutor had mentioned, including that Khieu Samphan was in charge of Sector 103. She confirmed to Mr. Raynor that when she met Khieu Samphan he was with the leaders and they constantly stayed close to each other. Mrs. Socheat said she never heard that Pol Pot suggested to Khieu Samphan that he get married, and told the court that Pol Pot and Nuon Chea[xxviii]both attended her wedding on December 25, 1972.

Witness’ Life During Pre-DK Period Discussed

Having been granted further time for cross-examination, Mr. Raynor posed a series of questions about the period before the Khmer Rouge took power. Mrs. Socheat affirmed that she was with Khieu Samphan everyday in 1973 and she could not be sure if he attended meetings with base people or not, but he mostly stayed at home. Mr. Sam Onn objected that Mr. Raynor’s phrasing of a subsequent question misrepresented the witness’ prior testimony and National Senior Assistant Co-Prosecutor Song Chorvoin read the excerpt in Khmer. A row ensued after Mr. Sam Onn suggested that Mrs. Socheat meant something different. Finally, President Nonn allowed questioning to resume.

Again, Ms. Chorvoin read out an extract in Khmer from Mrs. Socheat’s testimony in which she stated that when Khieu Samphan returned from China he stayed with her for perhaps three or four months. When Mr. Raynor queried a perceived inconsistency in her testimony, Mrs. Socheat clarified that Khieu Samphan returned from China when her child was almost one month old and stayed with her at B-17; they then moved to B-20 before shifting to Meak[xxix]. “We stayed together for approximately three months, almost up until the liberation day of Phnom Penh,” she recollected. She affirmed that the first time she saw Khieu Samphan after the birth of her first child was one month later in June 1974, and he stayed with her that month.

Under questioning about her arrival at the railway station in Phnom Penh, Mrs. Socheat testified that she cooked for people there and stayed over a week but never saw Khieu Samphan. Replying to Mr. Raynor, the witness said her husband had never told her he disagreed with Pol Pot from the time of their marriage up until Vietnam’s arrival in January 1979. Further, she declared that she had not heard Khieu Samphan make a speech broadcast on April 21, 1974, in which Mr. Raynor said he spoke of the victory “draining the population, draining the enemy and the enemy dying in agony”. Mrs Socheat recalled that Khieu Samphan spoke of the evacuation after they came to live in Phnom Penh, as they talked about their relatives and family members one year after the event occurred. “He wanted to know about the whereabouts of the relatives,” she told the court.

Questioning Turns to K-3

Switching to a different topic, Mr. Raynor read an extract of a transcript from a video recording in which Khieu Samphan said that his wife was “always at the communal kitchen cooking food” for when self-criticism meetings were held. Mrs. Socheat agreed that she cooked for communal meals, but she did not comprehend the section about criticism meetings. After Mr. Raynor noted that Khieu Samphan told the court’s Co-Investigating Judges (CIJs) that he lived at K-3 with Nuon Chea, Ieng Sary and Son Sen, Mrs. Socheat stated that this was incorrect. “You need to specify the time period because while I was there they were all living together – Pol Pot, Nuon Chea and Ieng Sary – but later on they had left, all of them had left,” she recollected, adding that she saw Khieu Samphan with Pol Pot and Nuon Chea at K-3 only at mealtimes.

Then Mr. Raynor cited Leng Choeung’s OCIJ interview as saying that he was assigned to drive Khieu Samphan in 1978 and stayed near Khieu Samphan’s house in K-3, where Nuon Chea and Ieng Sary lived in houses next to each other. Mrs. Socheat told the prosecutor she believed the statement was correct, though she could not recall the precise date. Reading from the testimony of Oeun Tan[xxx], K-1’s head of security, on June 13, 2012, Mr. Raynor inquired if Mrs. Socheat agreed that K-3 was the residence of Nuon Chea and Khieu Samphan. The witness affirmed that Nuon Chea stayed at K-1 and only occasionally came to K-3, despite the prosecutor then citing Khieu Samphan’s comment to the CIJs that he lived with Nuon Chea at K-3. After Mr. Raynor sought clarification on this point, Mr. Sam Onn objected that the question was repetitive and he should specify the time period – a request the witness subsequently echoed. Mrs. Socheat testified that they stayed at K-1 and then came to K-3 altogether, including Pol Pot, Nuon Chea, Ieng Sary, Son Sen and the spouses, along with Doeun and Vorn Vet.

When Mr Raynor suggested to Mrs. Socheat that she and Khieu Samphan concocted senior leaders’ “supposed exodus” of K-3 in an attempt to lie to and mislead the chamber, Mr. Sam Onn objected that the prosecutor was blaming the witness and not showing her any respect. In response, Mr. Raynor contended that the purpose of cross-examination is to present the prosecution’s case and test the credibility and reliability of the witness. “I am suggesting to this witness that she is a liar and she should be given the opportunity to respond,” he argued. The chamber overruled the objection. Mrs. Socheat responded that she was not lying to the court:

I am truthful in my statement, and as I repeatedly said, they stayed together for a period of time for some months and then they had left. And that’s what I accepted in my response to the question by the prosecutor … if your honors don’t believe in my statement or the prosecutor doesn’t believe in my statement then there is no need for me to testify here anymore. It’s like the prosecutor seems to discredit my statement that I make before your honors. I speak what I know and I cannot tell the prosecutor what I do not know.

Cross-Examination Issues Discussed

At this juncture Mr. Raynor requested an additional 25 minutes the following day to conclude his examination, stating that many objections – particularly on issues related to Khmer translation – had clogged the afternoon session.

Mr. Vercken recalled that he was in the same position as the prosecutor when a witness was being questioned within a common law framework. “In other words, a series of final suggestions leading to the person in the stand being told they are a liar – what do you say?” he said. The defense lawyer stated that the bench had not permitted him to proceed in this manner because putting a certain theory before the witness was not the practice of a chamber of this kind. Mr. Vercken commented that he was surprised to observe the prosecutor accusing the witness of being a liar, as it appeared to be different treatment than that meted out to the defense. He noted that the prosecution had already been given extra time and parties had “pages and pages” of work. “I do believe that he has used his time as he wanted to do and I believe that that is about enough now,” Mr. Vercken concluded. Mr. Raynor responded that he would not suggest again tomorrow that Mrs. Socheat is a liar, and his questions would be factual.

The prosecution was granted extra time for cross-examination and civil party lawyers were permitted the 30 to 40 minutes as requested.

President Nonn adjourned the hearing. Proceedings in Case 002 are set to resume at the ECCC on Wednesday, June 12, 2013, at 9 a.m. with questioning of So Socheat and another witness.