A Brave Witness ‘Names Names’ of Cruel Perpetrators of Torture and Murder

After starting out the day with the noisy exuberance of teenagers everywhere, it was a much subdued crowd of some 200 students from Kandal in Takhmao province that emerged from the ECCC gallery at lunch time. There was much for them to contemplate.

 

The usual court formalities of the greffier’s attendance report and the corollary matter of the President granting Nuon Chea’s request based on health reasons to attend the sessions today remotely were dealt with efficiently. Pich Ang, then formally asked the Trial Chamber to recognize a new lawyer and Singapore native, Mr. Mahesh Rai, who has already been accepted by the Bar Association of the Kingdom of Cambodia and been duly sworn. Nil Nonn was pleased to welcome Mahesh Rai as an International Lawyer for Civil Parties with standing to represent civil parties in proceedings before the court.

 

Khieu Samphan defence counsel, Kong Sam Onn, then raised a complaint that the prosecution lawyers had filed documents that indicated that the stand by lawyers represented Khieu Samphan currently. He reminded the court that these lawyers were not involved until they were ordered by the court to become involved.

 

Senior Assistant Prosecutor Vincent de Wilde granted that Mr. Kong had a point and said he would not do it again. He had simply done it to indicate that “they are authorized to take stock of all documents.”

 

The President ruled that “this is a non-issue and don’t repeat it again. Make it clear who are defence counsel and who are stand by counsel.” With that Nil Nonn said that the Senior Assistant Prosecutor could continue with examining the witness, Say Sen.

 

Mr. Say confirmed that he had been interrogated about Prum San but, as he did not know Prum San, he had been returned to the detention building and shackled. All he knew about Prum San was that the man had been accused of being a traitor. He knew little of other prisoners’ interrogations except what they had told him. One prisoner said his interrogator had accused him of being “connected to the prior regime” because he had a sibling who was a captain. He knew from Ta Non that he was from Hanoi, and the prisoner was later killed because of his origins even though Ta Non had married a “pure Khmer.”

 

Mr. de Wilde asked the witness about various persons he had encountered during his long stay at Kraing Ta Chan. Mr. Say said he was illiterate and could not read the list of names that the counsel had given him so Mr. de Wilde read them out to him one by one, asking about his knowledge of each of them. Only about four or five prisoners gained enough “status” to move about the prison. Ta Chen, Ta Non and Hun (?) were three of these. Nhor was a cook in the prison dining hall and Kha was her son. He was smaller and younger than Mr. Say. Iiet Chin was the survivor of a party of six. Khut Chin was the same person as Ta Chin. He knew Hun Send and Meas Surat. The latter was Nhor’s granddaughter. Interestingly, after saying that he knew of Khut Sen who had escaped from the battlefield and returned home where he traded wood with the Chinese, he identified Khut Sen as his own alias.

At this time, Mr. Koppe (Nuon Chea defence counsel), raised a general concern of those listening to the testimony that it was difficult to follow all of the names and asked that names be repeated.

 

Mr. Say said the name of the district was District 105 and not M105. The soldiers and chiefs referred to the inmates as “prisoners of war,” and that, “strictly speaking,” 17^th April people, Lon Nol officers and other people in detention were all prisoners of war. He remembered the occasion Meas Sokha had testified about of over 100 people coming to Kraing Ta Chan in 1977, at the time when Vietnam had attacked Cambodia. He had had to bury the bodies. He did not know at the time that they were Kampuchea Krom (Khmer from Vietnam). He thought they were Cham because they did not eat pork. Mr. de Wilde read into the record from Mr. Say’s prior statement that he had said that the Khmer Krom “were called Vietnamese and treated like Vietnamese. They spoke Vietnamese and lived in Vietnam. They executed Khmer Krom every day.” Mr. Say said: “they were not there long. In one to two days, they were executed.”

They were referred to as “Yuon” not Khmer Krom.

 

Executions followed the day after a messenger arrived on his motorbike. When the District Head would visit, he would always be accompanied by his messenger. But only the messenger delivered the envelopes to the chief in his office near the dining hall. Mr. de Wilde read in from Mr. Says statement that he “had seen letters from the supreme Angkar written in red ink. Then Duch would type up the reports on the people who had been exterminated.” The witness did not know if Duch also wrote up reports on those tortured but not yet killed. He “didn’t dare ask him.” The letters were given to the chief, his deputy or member of the prison committee. Soldiers were then assigned to act on it the next day. “Red ink meant the prisoners had to be exterminated. If urgent, they would be killed on the same day. Otherwise, the next day.”

 

Mr. Say testified that the purpose of the interrogations at Kraing Ta Chan was to determine if any had connections to Prum San or if the prisoners were CIA spies. He heard interrogations while he was sweeping in the area of the interrogation room. There were also questions regarding the ranks of the Lon Nol soldiers. Those who were old or had connections to the old regime, would be tortured. Only two or three out of ten “base people” would be tortured. This could take the form of beatings with 60-70 cm. bamboo poles. He was not aware fingernails were torn out but did know pliers were used to “extract or hurt the nipples of female prisoners.” By 1979, there were few Vietnamese prisoners left. Some had fled to the jungle; many were killed. When the Vietnamese came, the chains were broken and they all went to the cooperative.

 

Post break, Mr. Wilde again returned to the topic of interrogations. Mr. Say said that no notes were taken during interrogations. He did not know why he was instructed not to give some prisoners food after interrogations. There were only two chiefs in the time he was at Kraing Ta Chan. Ta An was chief after April 17^th, 1975. The witness does not know whether Duch was on the Committee but he was “in consultation with the Committee.”

 

Mr. Say filled in many details of torture and murder. He identified the two guards who raped two women from the mobile unit with a rifle as “Small Duch” and Sang. They were not punished “although there were regulations from the chief.” Sieng, Moeun, Sang and Small Duch comprised the group that killed the children. Sieng had “smashed” the younger girl against the tree; Sang killed the older child. Mr. Say was most emphatic that Small Duch was the “cruellest” of the twelve soldiers. “Any mistake and he would beat prisoners up. He was always active in beating prisoners.” There are still remains at some exhumation sites. For instance, sites west of the village “are untouched as of today.” Houses have been built on top of some of the pits south of the pond.

 

Judge Fenz followed up with questions about why the men who had sexually molested the two woman had not been punished. Mr. Say did not know what the regulations were but felt that the men would not have been punished because they were staff, “soldiers there.” The women were killed after they had been raped. The incident was not common knowledge but Small Duch told him about it.

 

And back to real estate. The two newer detention buildings for prisoners were built one after the other; in five years, there was only the one interrogation place; Mr. Say could not see through the walls because of the thickness of the leaves but he could see into the interrogation room as the front wall was lower than the back wall (where weapons and equipment were hung). He could remember when a prisoner named Song had tried to flee from the work fields and had been shot.

 

Judge Lavergne wanted to establish the staff structure in detail. Mr. Say shone in what was a difficult part of the examination for him. Firstly, Mr. Say identified Chhen as chief of the office pre-1975. Chhen left Kraing Ta Chen telling everyone that he was going to be in charge of Prison 204. Other prisoners told him that Prison 204 was for “base people” who had relatives in the Lon Nol regime. Later, Chhen went to Kampong Chan and would visit Kraing Ta Chan. Chhen is still living and has a home in his birth village. The judge queried him as to whether he had contact with Chhen and if Chhen had given him any advice about what he could say ultimately before this tribunal regarding Chhen’s role at Kraing Ta Chan. Mr. Say said that Chhen had told him that “people at his place should not allow (him) to go anywhere, just to stay in the area.” When the judge clarified if Chhen was saying he “should not talk to investigators,” the witness said Chhen “never suggested that.” Mr. Say knew a lot about what had happened to other staff at Kraing Ta Chan:

 

Ta An replaced Chhen. Mr. Say does not know whether Ta An is alive but his wife and children are.

 

Duch was Head of District 105. Ta An was at the Security Office. Small Duch and Ta An were “top cadres.” Later on, Small Duch would type reports because Ta Phen could not read or write well. There was a Big Dutch but he died from illness two years ago in Kampong Chan.

 

Ta Kuon was Head of the An Ro Ka office. He would “come and go” at Kraing Ta Chan. Kraing Ta Chan’s supervisory area included An Ro Ka.

 

Mr. Say knew of a soldier by the name of Ouk who had worked at headquarters after Kraing Ta Chan but he did not know what had happened to him.

 

Chhoun was a prisoner.

 

Moeun was a soldier and a member of the party. He died in 1979 during the fighting with Vietnam. His wife is still alive.

 

Saung was first a soldier and later became a party member.

 

Sang “along with Small Duch, was one of the most wicked. Sang and Duch were cruel and brutal. Sieng was not so cruel.” Mr. Say reviewed how Sang had killed the older child and Sieng the younger one.

 

Judge Lavergne wanted to know whether Mr. Say has met with Sieng. The witness said he had but that Sieng does not want to meet with him. Judge Lavergne asked if Sieng was afraid of what Mr. Say might say before the Tribunal? Mr. Say testified that Sieng told him that if Mr. Say was asked anything about Sieng, he “should tell them that he was a prisoner there as well. He suggested this once or twice.” Others have offered him money. Ta Chhen told Mr. Say that he was like a son so he could give Say Sen money if he wanted to start a business.

 

Four guards are still alive: Song, Sang, Sieng and Duch. Some of these guards are siblings and other relations to each other. They live near his house, 7 to 10 km. away.

 

Mr. Say said he was “still afraid and even more afraid when (he) is before the Chamber.” He confirmed to Judge Lavergne that he has been so afraid that he has sometime slept in the fields rather than in his home. He is “afraid of what might happen in the future.”

 

Judge Lavergne resumed questioning Mr. Say about personnel at the prison.

 

Soan was soldier and a guard. “A guard is a soldier.”

 

Dam was a soldier at first. He became a prisoner over a moral offence. He was then sent away but got in trouble with a second lady and was sent back to Kraing Ta Chan. He died two years ago.

 

Mr. Say does not know Sem.

 

Soung now lives near the border. Mr. Say was vitriolic calling Soung the “most cruel person at Kraing Ta Chan.” He added: “He should not have a life and become a lay person.”

 

Douch is deceased.

 

Kel worked at the Headquarters Office sending people to Kraing Ta Chan. He is deceased.

 

Civil Party co-lawyer Martine Jacquin interrupted with a point of concern asking the court to hold the rest of the examination in camera as the witness was expressing that he is afraid.

 

Judge Fenz asked if Ms. Jacquin was making a formal request to go into closed session? If so, for what kind of questions, for what length of time?

 

Pich Ang, National Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer, replied that they would like to request a closed session “because of the names he is mentioning.” He argued that the witness “needs to feel free to talk.” Other than the names, he felt the rest of the testimony could be in public.

 

Suon Visal (of the Nuon Chea defence team) said that that “is not reasonable” as what Mr. Say was stating was public knowledge.

 

Victor Koppe (also of the Nuon Chea defence team) termed the request “unreasonable and untimely as the judge has been asking him names for one-half an hour.” Further, the witness has not met the requirement of articulating a “concrete fear.”

 

Kong Sam Onn, Co-Lawyer for Khieu Samphan, pointed out that it was “hard to open and close public sessions.” He did not feel that the request was substantiated as “the civil party has provided answers so far” without “material concerns.”

 

Judge Fenz defined the problem stating there “are certain rules” to be met. Mr. Say would have to have a fear for his safety from a threat to his life or health or that of his family. She suggested this be “contemplated” over lunch.

 

Marie Guiraud, Civil Party International Lead Co-Lawyer offered that the civil party lawyers would consider this over lunch and return with “a well-reasoned, concerted application” that would give the court grounds for deliberations on the request.

 

Pich Ang had what Judge Fenz concurred in was a point when he further requested that the grounds and request be held in camera, also.

 

Mr. Koppe asked that the grounds be related in time. He wanted to know if the fear has arisen in just the last few days or has it been known for years? If the latter, he wants to know why the court was being “ambushed” with the request now.

 

The President ruled he would grant the request to make a request in camera–and ordered the A/V connection to the public disconnected.

 

It was a ‘long lunch.’ The court returned at 3:05 P.M. from its in camera session.

 

Judge Fenz brought the public up to date. She stated that the request to have protective measures covering part of the identification of former staff members of Kraing Ta Chan had been made.

According to Rule 29, there had to be a report by the Witness Support Services Unit on the life and death threats. As such, “the Chamber does not have all of the information necessary to make a decision at this time but the questions will go ahead.” But the court was not going to allow any names until the decision had been made, even if the civil party has to be recalled. The judge then addressed Mr. Say telling him that he does not have to answer any questions concerning the former staff members, that he can simply say that he does not wish to answer.

Judge Lavergne continued with his examination of the witness empathetically acknowledging that the questions “may be difficult” for him but that “we need to progress.”

 

Mr. Say described how prisoners were both shackled and handcuffed in five meter long rows. The walls of the detention buildings were not fully enclosed with planks and one could see between the boards. He knew Kev Chandara and that Mr. Chandara had been at Kraing Ta Chan for, he thought, ten days.

 

The witness knew nothing about the use of acid in torture but he did know that plastic sheets were used as blindfolds. And prisoners were sometimes tied around the waist by a rope and lowered into an underground, earthen cell three or four meters in diameter. On occasion, they were dragged back to the detention building by the rope.

 

Mr. Say had made alcoholic sugar palm juice and seen the chief get inebriated on it. The chief would then shout at people.

 

The numbers in the detention buildings varied. The maximum in one building would be about 100 although he did not count them. After the two new buildings were constructed, there would be fewer in each building on average.

 

Mr. Say did not know much about the leaders’ visits. Ta Chim, the District Chief, came once a month. He did not know what Ta Chim’s relationship was to Ta Mok. The soldiers told him when Ta Chim was no longer District Chief and had gone to head a rubber plantation in Kampong Chan. Ta Mok was Comrade 15. In 1977, Ta Mok had come for a visit and hit him on the back with a stick when he was not doing anything wrong. Ta Pi is a handicapped person who Mr. Say “know(s) clearly.” He was at the office after Ta Chen left. He became District Committee 105 and would come three to four times a week to Kraing Ta Chan.

 

Mr. Say also knows Yeay Bo “clearly.” He does not know of any affiliation she has with Kraing Ta Chan. He knew her in 1972 and did not see her in Kraing Ta Chan.

 

Ta Tith he heard of at Kraing Ta Chan.

 

Mr. Say did not know Duch (of S-21 fame) at Kraing Ta Chan. He just knows his name from “present time.”

 

Judge Lavergne wanted to know what difficulties (physical, mental, any particular traumas) that Mr. Say had suffered from due to his time at Kraing Ta Chan. Mr. Say did “not want to say anything of (his) life. (He) never expected to survive.” He does “not want to talk about (his) experiences at Kraing Ta Chan.” He maintained he was “happy” but he cannot sleep when he has been asked about Kraing Ta Chan. He does not want “to talk about the sufferings. Some I forgot; some I recall… after 41 years.” He gets nightmares, for example, when journalists interview him. Another time, when at a self-help group doing repairs, he “all of a sudden recalled bad experiences” and became emotionally upset.

 

Mr. Koppe started his cross-examination with questions concerning Mr. Say’s birth day and that he was about 15 or 16 when he was at Kraing Ta Chan. Then he also asked the witness about various prisoners he knew at the security center.

 

Grandmother Ngor he knew and knew that her husband Suk Khun had been exterminated before Ngor and other family members were brought to Kraing Ta Chan. Meas Sokar and Meas Surat were her children. Meas Surat had been one of the two women Duch raped with an M79 missile.

 

Judge Lavergne interrupted Mr. Koppe to remind him that it had been agreed that there would be no names of family members of cadres at Kraing Ta Chan until the decision came down.

 

Mr. Say continued with the fact that Meas Surat is still alive and living in the United States.

Mon Boeun, Meas Surat’s husband was killed and buried under a coconut tree. Mr. Say did not know when he had been arrested or why. Neither did he know when or why Meas Khun had been arrested. He had already been tortured to death before Ngor was taken in.

 

It being 4:00 P.M., the Trial Chamber adjourned for the day.