Plight of the Khmer Krom Takes Center Stage at the ECCC

After the excitement of journalist and author, Ms. Elizabeth Becker, it was a quiet day in the courtroom as the ECCC returned to the relevant work of hearing the stories of civil party witnesses.

When Ry Pov was called to the stand he identified himself as a rice farmer born in 1957, in Takeo province where he lives today with his current wife and three children.

Marie Guiraud, Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer had the task of drawing out the narrative of Mr. Ry’s life during the Khmer Rouge years. Mr. Ry testified that by 1975, his parents no longer wanted to live under the Khmer Rouge regime. During the war with Lon Nol, Pol Pot forces had destroyed houses and whole villages. So, on April 17, 1975, his family fled to the Kampuchea Krom area of South Vietnam. There they lived in a refugee camp along with 1,000-1,500 hundred other families. But his parents got homesick for their native country. They knew nothing about the Khmer Rouge policies, about the killings or what was going on in Cambodia. They “were only thinking about their homeland.”

In early 1976, Khmer Rouge and Vietnamese officials set up an exchange program. Vietnamese authorities told them they would be returned to Cambodia. They did not know that they would be taken to a different village or anything about the living conditions. The family discussed the offer and decided to return together. (After the exchange program, Mr. Ry said that the border was closed and entry to Cambodia was prohibited). His family were in the “first batch” returned in February, 1976, packed into 10 trucks. The convoy stopped near a mountain in Takeo province. Five of the trucks were driven off elsewhere but the passengers from the other vehicles were divided and sent three different places. And then their lives changed for the worse.

Prior to leaving Vietnam, the people had sold their cows and horses to get the money to make the trip home. When they arrived at the rest place in Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge collected all of their belongings, their money and their jewelry. They were told that they would be paid by Angkar. Mr. Ry told the court that they “felt regretful” when their money was confiscated and “sorry that they had left a happy life in Kampuchea Krom.”

Their identity cards and any form of identification were taken from them and burned along with their money. It was explained that Cambodia now had cooperatives and collectives, they would get their meals from Angkar, and “not to worry.” In reality, they lost their freedom of movement and were “exposed to forced labour and common eating.”

Many members of his family came back but Mr. Ry can only remember his parents’ names although he had brothers and sisters. After ten days, his family was split up and not allowed to live together. Everyone went to separate units. Mr. Ry went to a mobile unit. He grew rice, did dry season farming, and built a dam and irrigation canals. He does not know where his parents were sent. He could only be with them on CPK anniversary days. Mr. Ry said he would cry when he saw them during the festivals.

Mr. Ry was unable to answer Ms. Guiraud’s question as to whether they were considered Vietnamese by the authorities in Tram Kok. He did not know what the organizational arrangement was. He did know that the people were divided into three groups: “the 17^th April people,” the Ayuon people,” and the “base people.” He was in the Ayuon group. Mr. Ry said they called “Ayuon people” the “contemptible enemy.” In his opinion, the “base people” were not mistreated.

The Civil Party Lawyer wanted more information about the living conditions to which he was subjected. One could hear the anger in Mr. Ry’s words as he detailed his “miserable life” from 1976-1979. He said “the “base people” would curse and hit them.” They had no freedom to move around and little food, but a person who was caught with fishing without permission would be tortured with forced over-eating. The “17^th April people” suffered from the same treatment as the returnees from Vietnam.

Mr. Ry recounted that during the Khmer Rouge time, all the people were put in units. Each unit had fifty people. (His unit had 17 people from Vietnam in it). Then they were subdivided into groups of 12 which were controlled by “base people.” The “base people” would regulate how they ate, slept, and moved about, “all daily activities.”

Nuon Chea Defence Counsel, Victor Koppe objected to Ms. Guiraud’s asking the witness if the “base people” knew that they were Vietnamese. The counsel requested guidance from the bench regarding the place in the trial of the Khmer Krom “as their treatment is not part of the closing order crimes of which Khieu Samphan and Nuon Chea are accused.” He felt the problems of the Krom were outside the scope of the trial and that possibly the hearing “was entering a subject outside of the closing order.” Anta Guissé, Khieu Samphan Defence Counsel, endorsed the request for clarification.

In reply, Marie Guiraud argued that the Khmer Krom “were likened to Vietnamese” and knowledge about what happened to them “enlightens the Chamber.” She said “it is essential and it is relevant to pursue this line of questioning.”

International Co-Prosecutor Dale Lysak took a different tack. He accused Mr. Koppe of “misstating the ruling…that the Khmer Krom are specifically referenced in the closing order.” Mr. Lysak further pointed out that “Kraing Ta Chan is an issue here, and that anyone sent there is within the scope of the trial.” 

The President disallowed any “responses to the responses” of other parties and the bench held a quick consultation. Judge Lavergne announced that the objection was overruled on three bases.

Firstly, the facts concern the living conditions at Tram Kok. Secondly, the closing order makes reference to the Khmer Krom. And, thirdly, that the Chamber “would like it on record that who is a member by nationality or perception falls within the scope of the trial and should, therefore, be discussed.”

Mr. Ry did not know who was Khmer Krom or who was not. He considered it “internal Khmer Rouge business,” and he was not informed about what they were doing. He said he “was considered as an animal.” He did know that there were some Khmer Krom in his unit along with some “17^th April people,” but he could not remember the names of the people he knew at the time.

During 1976-1979, Mr. Ry witnessed arrests at his worksites “on a daily basis” but they were not called “arrests.” The victims were told that they were being sent for “re-education.” He “was scared” when this happened. Mr. Ry did not know for sure that they were killed. Only the unit chief would know what happened to the people being arrested. But, one day when he was chasing after cows he was tending near Kraing Ta Chan, he discovered a man from his mobile unit dying in a 20 meter long pit. Until Chan called out to him by name, Mr. Ry had thought he was being haunted by a ghost. Chan, covered in blood and gasping for breath, asked him to tell his mother he was dead. Mr. Ry was so “shocked” that he did not notice much else about the place other than there were other bodies there. He was frightened that someone would see him and that he would then be killed. The Khmer Rouge and “base people” threatened that they could kill them with a bamboo club.

Chan was from the same village in Vietnam as Mr. Ry. He did not know the reason for the arrest. They often did not even know someone had been arrested. A person would be called to go by a messenger.

Mr. Ry had been chosen to be married by making a “resolution” but he was so sick the day of the ceremony that his name was taken off the list. Six or seven days later, Vietnamese troops arrived and they all fled. He went to his home village.

Mr. Koppe, supported by Khieu Samphan defence counsel Kong Sam Onn, objected to Ms. Guiraud asking the witness if he was supposed to have married “another” Khmer Krom as Mr. Ry said he was born in Takeo and had not said that he was Khmer Krom. “It is misstating the evidence.” Ms. Guiraud reformulated the question.

Mr. Ry was supposed to have married a woman from his native village called Ren but then the country was liberated. If someone from the unit was to be married, the unit members would have been invited. But, he was to be the first from his unit to get married and then that did not happen. So, he never attended a “resolution” ceremony. “17^th April people” and people from Vietnam “were treated as one” and were matched to each other but not to “base people.”

Lor Chunthy, introduced himself as from Legal Aid of Cambodia and took over the questioning from his civil party lawyer colleague. He wanted to know what the living conditions were like in Vietnam.

The witness said they were called refugees and lived “in camps for good management.” The US donated rice, medicine and other food supplies. They had enough to eat. Some families did not return and are still there today. Particularly those with paddy fields “stayed and enjoyed those properties.”

When the exchange occurred, Vietnam got its people back before the Khmer Krom were repatriated. The conditions in Cambodia were much worse. They were told not to complain that they did not have enough to eat or they would be “taken away.” Forced to work long hours of hard labour, they sometimes only received two meals for 20 hours of work. And they would work without breaks, fed only when they had completed their assignments. When they were sick, there was no medicine, no clinic or hospital, and they were not fed. If they fell sick or died, it was called “the will of history.” And they would be accused of being “an infiltrator or enemy.” They “could lose their limbs for opposing.”

Mr. Koppe requested that the court instruct the witness to only speak to events he has witnessed himself.

Mr. Ry had two uncles evacuated from Phnom Penh. One was accused of stealing and died. And he lost a younger brother before his first birthday. The child had been taken from his parents and placed in the care of an old woman. He died. He does not know how many people from his village who returned survived. He knew that some whole families “had disappeared.”

Deputy Co-Prosecutor Seng Leang was Mr. Ry’s next inquisitor. Mr. Seng asked him if he had ever seen any visiting leaders. Accompanied by unit chiefs, Ta Mok had come twice (in 1977) to inspect worksites. Ta Mok was a Sector Secretary and a relative of the commune chief Ta Chunn. Mr. Ry confirmed that there had been a rice mill and all the equipment needed to produce rice at the worksite. If someone broke a rule, they would be punished by more work.

When Mr. Ry said “they were called ‘contemptible,’” the President interrupted to reprimand him for saying “ they.” Judge Nil told him to “be specific, respond only within the limits of the question.” He also reprimanded the counsel for asking repetitive questions and advised him to phrase his questions as simply as possible. Mr. Ry informed the judge that he had used “they” because he could not remember their names.

The workers had no freedom of movement. Mr. Ry said that even when they had to relieve themselves, they had to ask permission. “If they took longer than normal, they were accused of ‘psychological disease.’” No one would dare leave work without the permission of Angkar.

Everyone was so afraid of being killed, that they “tried to abide by the organizational discipline.” That is why nobody dared protest against insufficient food. They would have been accused of being an enemy and secretly taken away and killed. Two people in his unit died of starvation. They got leg infections and could not work. The infections got worse because when they were sick, they would not be fed. Then they died.

Mr. Ry had heard the term “cooperative.” Cooperatives had already been established by the time he had returned from Vietnam. He was not aware of the terms ‘model cooperative’ or ‘model district.’ Only the leaders would know which ones were models. Mr. Ry did not know what happened to the Lon Nol civil servants. Neither did he know anything about the second and third batches of returnees from Vietnam because he could not move around freely to find out.

Kong Sam Onn asked the Deputy Co-Prosecutor to reference again the document from which he was about to question the witness as there had been a translation problem. Ms. Guissé demanded to know why Mr. Ry was being questioned about the document at all as the civil party had already indicated he knew nothing about the military.

International Co-Prosecutor Travis Farr got to ask the most important question: Did Mr. Ry consider himself to be Khmer Krom? Yes, he did. But he said the characters were too small for him to read a document identified as a list of names that the Co-Prosecutor asked if he recognized as being Khmer Krom. Mr. Ry recognized that Touch and Chow were Khmer Krom family names common along the border. He did not know a Nem Srei. He would only ever be able to identify his peers in any event because they had been separated into groups on the basis of sex and age. As they “could not mingle” with anyone else, he would not know her. He reiterated that the categories into which he knew the people to have been divided were Khmer Krom, “17^th April people” and “base people” not “first type, second type and third type” as Mr. Farr mentioned.

Mr. Koppe objected that it was “impossible question” to ask a witness to identify 54 families with all their family members, but the President ruled it an appropriate inquiry.

Mr. Ry did remember seeing a group of 30 Khmer Krom tied up and marched off. He does not know for sure what happened to them but they were going towards Kraing Ta Chan, the killing field. For any wrongdoing, one could be accused of being “yuon, or puppet of yuon, or enemy.” Of the people who returned from Vietnam, only six survived and are still living in the same neighborhood.

Judge Lavergne wanted to backtrack and clarify Mr. Ry’s status as a Khmer Krom. Mr. Ry said he had been born in Cambodia, then fled to Vietnam. He considered himself Kampuchea Funan not Krom. The group chiefs had considered that he belonged to the Khmer Krom as he “had a Khmer body with a Vietnamese head,” (a common expression, he said). Other names he had heard for the Khmer Krom were “preparatory people, yuon puppets, CIA or Vietnamese spies… They called us what they pleased.”

None of the returnees had had to write their biographies on arrival because Angkar already knew they had come from Vietnam. No one Mr. Ry knew said that they would like to return to their villages in Vietnam because they were aware that this was a trap. They would have been killed if they said yes. He had not changed his nationality to Vietnamese when he moved to Vietnam because he was in a refugee camp being treated as a refugee. But there were Khmer Krom with Vietnamese nationality living there in a village. Only Khmers returned from Vietnam.

On marriage, Mr. Ry repeated that he was supposed to be the first in his unit to get married. Marriage happened in other units where the members were older than he. He knows of two couples that were married then that are still married today. People were instructed to monitor the activities of newlywed couples and report consummation of the marriage. Mr. Ry denied ever saying to an investigator that he had “personally witnessed the forced marriage of 30 couples.”

Rather he had just said that “there was a resolution ceremony for 30 couples in a commune.”

Mr. Ry knew “base people” worked less than he did because the unit chief and group chiefs did not work but “only monitored them and found fault with them.” The President objected to the assumption and Mr. Farr rephrased. Mr. Ry said that the “17^th April people” and the Vietnamese worked hard but that even the children of “base people” did not work. The President reminded him to respond within the limits of the question or he would “bring trouble on himself.”

The witness did not know Chan’s family name. And he had not known before the incident that people from the unit were being taken out and tortured and killed. Only the chiefs who counted the unit members would know when someone was taken. The other unit members might not notice for awhile that someone was missing. They would get up at 4:00 AM, grab their work baskets and head for their assigned worksites. He remembered it happened in the rainy season as rice was being transplanted. When Mr. Ry remembered the killing site was near the forest close to a militia headquarters, Judge Nil Nonn again ordered him to respond within the limits of the question.

When the Nuon Chea Defence Team declined to question Mr. Ry, Ms. Guissé accepted the opportunity. She explored what, if any, relationship Mr. Ry had with Chow Meas, who had interviewed him. Other than as the person who filled out his application to become a civil party form, Mr. Ry did not know the man or his background. Nor did he know that Mr. Chow would be testifying at the Tribunal himself.

At the end of the cross-examination, Mr. Ry said he had a question for Khieu Samphan which he prefaced with “Khieu Samphan would not admit that he was a leader.” Mr. Ry wanted know: “where was Khieu Samphan that he did not know about the killing of the Khmer people?” 

In reply, President Nil Nonn announced that Khieu Samphan was exercising his right to remain silent. As the Tribunal had received no notification to the contrary, the court ruled that the right had not been waived. The judge invited the civil party to make a statement of the impact of the suffering he experienced during the Khmer Rouge regime years of 1976-1979.

Mr. Ry said he did not have a personal statement to make and he wanted nothing for himself, but he “has remorse, pity for his parents, siblings, and relatives suffering, the misery that they went through.” He “implored the United Nations and the Tribunal to prevent a recurrence of atrocities. Adjudicate and try leaders of the Khmer Rouge according to their acts against Cambodians all across the country.”

 It was a fitting end to a week when much was learned about the history and historical context of the genocide and we can all hope that, as a result, some small progress has been made towards preventing another.