Protective Measures Ordered for Cadre Witness

President Nin Nonn convened court to deal with the pending request for protective measures received from witness 2TCW944. Under Internal Rule 76(6), the session could be held either in public or in camera if such was necessary to give effect to protective measures.  As per Internal Rule 29, the Trial Chamber then moved to closed session in order to discuss the request.

It was a long sitting with public access being denied until 10:30 A.M. when Judge Nil Nonn delivered the oral ruling with written reasons to follow. The Chamber granted the request made for protective measures through WESU: Details of the address of witness 2TCW944 are not to be broadcast. His image also is not to be shown; his features are to be distorted on the video of the trial.

As there was no request made to hide the name of the witness, Srei Than was called by name to the stand. Born in 1957, Mr. Srei is a rice farmer, married with two children. The President qualified him and the witness confirmed that he had testified to OCIJ investigators on three occasions at his home. He agreed that the record he was shown was consistent with his prior statements.

Mr. Srei said he has already consulted with the duty counsel appointed for him by WESU.

The judge carefully explained to him that he could consult with his lawyer whenever he thought answering a particular question might violate his right against self-incrimination but that it was his duty to respond to all questions that did not violate that right.

Assistant Co-Prosecutor Dale Lysak prefaced his questions saying that his first interest was in the 1973-1976 period when the witness was “a district soldier in Tram Kok district.”

Srei Than became a Khmer Rouge soldier in late 1973 and fought Lon Nol soldiers in Regiment 13. By late 1973, he had moved to Regiment 21 in the Khmer Rouge “sector army”. He could not remember what division the regiment was under. In 1975, at the time the Khmer Rouge attacked Phnom Penh, he was in Regiment 13 of Division 210.

The witness could not recall anything about the capture of Angtasom. He did know that Lon Nol soldiers who had surrendered under white flags in Takao provincial town were sent to a cooperative in the Tram Kok district. Mr. Srei did not whether any high-ranking officers were arrested and he had no knowledge about Office 204 in Tram Kok District. Mr. Lysak read in from one of Srei Than’s interviews that laid out that, after he had lived in Kraing Ta Chan, he was in many places in the Southwest Zone. Mr. Srei clarified that he had then returned to his former Division 210 and not gone to Prey Ka Duk as the Co-Prosecutor thought. He affirmed that at no time had he worked near Prey Ka Duk or Office 204. Mr. Lysak then recited from Kev Chandara’s testimony that, of the evacuees gathered at Wat Champa, 70 per cent were killed. As Srei Than was not in Tram Kok at that time, he did not know what had happened to them. He had stayed attached to Regiment 13 of Division 210, but they were constantly being transferred to different locations and had no one particular base. “A month after April 17^th, 1975,” he was transferred to a mountain in Ponnareay and then to engage in rice farming at a variety of locations.

In 1976, Srei Than was assigned to work at Kraing Ta Chan initially as an outside guard at a post one kilometer away from the prison itself. Six of them from his army unit were sent at one time. He confirmed this number included Son and Sim. (This was after the Co-Prosecutor had given him two warnings not to identify by name the two men listed in an evidentiary document but just to state to the court whether they had been part of his unit).

Co-Prosecutor Lysak read in from a prior interview that someone had told Mr. Srei that “Kraing Ta Chan was a site to kill people and that those brought in could not live (meaning they all died).” Srei Than said he had learned this from villagers.

Mr. Srei concurred with Mr. Lysak’s summary that he was first an outside guard or external guard, and later worked inside typing documents for the prison chief. There was no teacher at Kraing Ta Chan, and the witness did not know who made the arrests of prisoners who “were sent by people in the commune.” He said the militiamen did not affect the arrests but that militia delivered the prisoners.

Srei Than did not recollect being interviewed by Meng-Try who, the Co-Prosecutor informed the Tribunal, had written a book of interviews taken between 2000-2001. Mr. Lysak asked the witness if he was the Sok Chantha (a.k.a. Duch) who was mentioned in the volume as being “a typist cadre at Kraing Ta Chan.” Mr. Srei said that he had never used the alias Sok Chantha. The Counsel said that both Duch and Sang had reported that “a bell hung from a mango three outside the prison compound. When the militiamen brought the prisoners, they rang the bell and the cadres came out to meet the prisoners.” But Mr. Srei had no memory of such a bell.

Mr. Lysak read in that Mr. Srei had previously testified that “prisoners were brought in hands tied, five or six of them one after another, a maximum number of twenty people but sometimes only three to four people.” The witness confirmed that he meant a maximum of twenty prisoners a day but arrivals did not happen every day. He could think of only two buildings in which the prisoners were detained, not the four buildings to which Say Sen had attested. Each building could hold 50-60 prisoners.

The Co-Prosecutor read in from a report: “75 prisoners in a month, 92 prisoners purged, 6 died of illness, a Lieutenant Colonel removed to sector, 85 prisoners left.”  Srei Than had not been aware of any such reports but he recognized this one as being in Duch’s handwriting. He identified Duch as the chief deputy of the prison chief, Ta An.

Mr. Lysak clarified that there were two cadres named Duch: this witness and the deputy chief and Mr. Srei agreed that his understanding was correct.

Mr. Srei could not define “to remove to sector.” Neither did he know if there was a sector office for the sector in which Kraing Ta Chan is located. Prison transfers were made but he did had no knowledge of the destinations or what happened to the prisoners there. Transfers did not occur often and not until late 1978 and early 1979.

Srei Than knew Say Sen as a prisoner who was already at Kraing Ta Chan when he arrived.

Say Sen was let out to cook during the day but detained at night.

Mr. Lysak read in from another interview: “The prisoners went for beatings and interrogations every single day. The interrogation room was 50 meters from where I worked. I heard the prisoners’ screams.” Other than to deny that the interrogation room was in the location for it noted on the OCIJ map of the Kraing Ta Chan compound, Mr. Srei could not point out where it really was. He denied that there were any dining halls for the guards. The six guards in his unit ate together but in different places. There was no set place for them to eat. They “ate here, ate there.” The prisoners ate in the detention buildings. The kitchen was old and no longer in use by the time he arrived. Cooking was done in various locations. His unit did their own cooking, again at no set place. There were three guards per building. Sometimes they ate in the east building and sometimes in the west building.

At 11:40 A.M. the President broke in to announce that this was a good point to stop for lunch. Then, after a short bench consultation, Judge Nil Nonn adjourned the hearing until Monday, February 23, 2015. No reason for cancelling the afternoon session was provided but the court did warn the media that the order for protective measures included non-disclosure of the witness’s address and his image, including photographs, regardless of when taken.