Soldier or Cadre? Guard Contradicts Evidence of Prisoner
A soldier testifying at the ECCC has rejected accusations of murder, rape and other wicked behavior made against him by Say Sen, a prisoner at Kraing Ta Than security office during the Khmer Rouge regime. It was a long day of imputations of guilt and professions of innocence that started mildly enough.
Co-Prosecutor Dale Lysak lost no time in continuing his examination started on Friday, February 20, 2015, of Srei Than. The witness was also known as Little Duch, the same person that Say Sen testified was “one of the cruelest” of the guards.
Srei Than submitted that the interrogation site was on the south side of the Kraing Ta Chan compound. The distance between the east and west prisoner detention buildings and the interrogation site was about 40 meters. The two-room prison chief’s building was north of the kitchen, about 70 meters from the interrogation site. It was small, three to four meters wide and partitioned into separate rooms. This is where he had done typing for the administration on one of the two typewriters available in the compound. The witness said that he could hear the screaming of prisoners being tortured only when he was inside this building, that he could not hear it at the guard post outside. He agreed with prior witnesses who said the interrogation room had a thatched roof and a partial wall on one side. Mr. Srei said you could not look into the room because there were vegetables and banana and coconut trees being grown that obscured the view. He contradicted prior testimony of other witnesses that claimed to have heard details of interrogations while doing chores such as cooking close to the interrogation site. Srei Tran maintained that during interrogations no one was allowed near. He was close enough to hear the screaming but not close enough to hear what was being said in the room. When they were being brought back to the detention building, Mr. Srei did observe prisoners who “appeared to have been tortured and severely beaten,” but he did not know how they were interrogated or who conducted the interrogations. He did not know Chantha, but knew Yeay Ngor and some of her children who were already at the security center when he arrived at his posting.
The witness did not know anything about plastic bags being used to torture prisoners or whether weapons such as clubs or sticks were used as he did not go into the interrogation room. He claims he never took prisoners from the detention buildings to the interrogation site, that this was a duty of prison staff. He only guarded the outside perimeter of the compound. At night, he moved closer to the inner part of the compound. His guard post was about 20 meters from the east building but he admitted that the guards would sit closer to it than that.
During his testimony, Mr. Srei “clarified” several times that his unit was not part of the prison staff. He claimed he did not have any role at Kraing Ta Chan. Ta An, was the prison chief and Duch was his deputy, but Srei Tran was under the supervision of the army not the prison chief.
He was asked to type when Duch or Ta An were absent. One of them would ask him to type a list from documents they gave him. A typewriter already would be set up with a blank piece of paper under the roller. He would do the typing and then return to his post. The witness knew Cheng who had handwritten confessions in notebooks but Dam had already left by the time Mr. Srei had arrived at Kraing Ta Chan. Mr. Srei could not identify to whom several examples of handwriting belonged but he had seen “similar” notebooks to the several documents decorated with multiplication tables and pictures of children writing shown to him from the court file.
Mr. Srei explained that he had typed confessions from pieces of paper not from these books filled with lists of names of prisoners admitted to the security office. The witness did not recognize a particular report so did not know whether he had typed it or not, but he was able to establish that it was the sort of report he had copied from hand-written notes. He confirmed that, in general, the process followed was to type notes up verbatim into a report that was then signed by Chairman An (the witness identified Ta An’s signature on an exhibit) or one or two others. He was not there when the documents were signed so would not know who had signed what in particular. Then the reports were sent by messengers (whose names he did not know) “to the Party” but he did not know where the Party was.
Mr. Srei did not know if Kraing Ta Chan was known as District 105 Re-Education Office but said the heading he had seen written was “Education Office District 105” and District 105 was Tram Kok.
Srei Tran confirmed that those who complained that there was not enough food or that they were overworked, if they stole food to eat or if they pretended to be sick or were lazy, would be sent away. He said most prisoners were men, a few were women and children. It was “rare to see elderly prisoners.”
Victor Koppe, Nuon Chea Defence Counsel, objected to an incomplete quote from a document and requested that the full quote be given, including that the prisoners “had stolen often and repeatedly without deterrence.” Counsel also wanted a tattoo included in the description of two Lon Nol soldier prisoners to give an “accurate reflection,” but Mr. Lysak argued Mr. Koppe was “free to question the witness on the tattoo.”
Mr. Srei did not recognize the handwriting in another book of prisoner lists from the court file, and did not know the significance of “X’s” next to the prisoners’ names. He reiterated his prior testimony of last week that he knew prisoners were transferred but he did not know to where they were taken. He did not know Meng and he did not know whose responsibility it was to keep track of the detainees who died of illness. It “seem(ed) to (him), no one was responsible for that.” Neither could he recall any incident in which twenty prisoners were discovered plotting an escape to Vietnam or Thailand.
Mr. Koppe noted the “general problem” caused by not using original documents in court was shown by the above exhibit regarding the breakout scheme. Stating it looks “different” than the other pages supposedly from the same notebook, the lawyer questioned whether it was part of the same document. He had no objections about the Co-Prosecutors questions per se but wanted to raise that there was some doubt about to what this document belongs. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Koppe brought up a similar concern about use of another document about which he claimed it was not known “for sure” that it was a Kraing Ta Chan document. Mr. Lysak dismissed the relevance of this as it was already part of the current case file, but admitted to the court that he did not know whether the document was mentioned in a footnote to the indictment. Mr. Koppe insisted on a ruling and was overruled after a bench consultation. On a third such objection, Mr. Koppe argued that he had researched the document in question that Mr. Lysak wanted to reference and it “seem(ed) to be a copy of an original of that was at Tuol Sleng not Kraing Ta Chan.” The Co-Prosecutor countered that many Kraing Ta Chan documents are stored at Tuol Sleng, and that many of the prisoners mentioned in the exhibit in question also have appeared in other notes thereby showing that “it clearly involves Tram Kok.” Mr. Koppe was overruled.
Mr. Srei identified the handwriting on a list of 37 prisoners “purged.” He did add that An and Duch could annotate documents but he “could not assume that it is their handwriting.” It is in the “same form” as those he typed but he did not recognize this particular document. Neither had he seen “dead bodies piled up on each other outside the fence,” that Say Sen had reported.
Srei Than acknowledged that his cousin Meas Hun (spelling?) (a student and Lon Nol soldier who had been living in Phnom Penh) had been a prisoner at Kraing Ta Chan but it was before the witness was assigned there. Mr. Lysak quoted from Mr. Srei’s OCIJ interview that “99% of prisoners were smashed.” The witness does not know what ultimately happened to his relative but he has never seen him again.
Mr. Srei’s was adamant that he had never attended any meetings during which he received instructions to take people to be killed. He repeated that his six-man unit was under the commander of Regiment 13 and not part of staff at the security office. Contrary to the evidence of Say Sen, during the time he was there, no music was played on loudspeakers while people were being killed, and he did not know anything about hoes, bamboo trunks and swords being the weapons used to dispatch prisoners. Neither did he know what Say Sen’s duties were and, specifically, whether Say Sen had been ordered “to build pits and bury bodies.” Mr. Srei’s unit was armed, “day and night,” with M16’s, AK’s and CKC’s (weapon name?).
The Co-Prosecutor quoted Say Sen’s sworn description of Srei Than’s role that: “He typed. He also killed prisoners if there were many, (he) had seen it very often; before killing women, he told them to get naked.” Mr. Srei disputed this asserting again that his unit just guarded the outside perimeter. He “(could) not respond to whether he killed people.” The witness did admit that it was “true” children were killed but did “not remember” how many. The Co-Prosecutor did not follow up on why the witness felt he “could not respond” or on how he knew that children were killed. He denied being present (as Say Sen gave evidence he was) when the two small children being executed. As he “did not witness killings, (he could) not make assumptions” as to how the children were killed.
After lunch, Lor Chunthy, a Legal Aid of Cambodia lawyer representing Civil Parties in the proceedings, fleshed out details and firmed up others. Mr. Srei replied to the counsel’s enquiries that he was transferred to Kraing Ta Chan in 1976, first to a place about six (Perhaps “one” km. and a translation error?) kilometers away from the security office. Soldiers and militiamen (whose names he did not remember) brought prisoners to his post. The prisoners would go to either the east gate or the west gate where prison staff would take them over. The prisoners would have their hands tied behind their backs “so they couldn’t run away.” The children would be behind the older people. Later on, he was moved to guard the entrance and would do typing when either Duch or Ta An were absent. It happened only occasionally, “once a week or a fortnight.” No one was there when he worked at his typing task. Only Ta An and Duch could “verify the information,” and they would correct by hand any errors he had made. The messengers just came occasionally, not monthly.
As the subject came up again, he further clarified: His “six-man unit was not staff but under the military district. An and Duch were leaders and asked us to be on specific locations on guard, but only commanders could remove us and assign us where they wanted.”
Concerning miscellaneous matters, Mr. Srei did not know whether women and children were incarcerated with the men. He had observed that the food ration for prisoners was a coconut shell full of gruel with cooked rice in it. His unit ate outside the compound and their food ration was not related to that of the prisoners. It was better but still not sufficient. Srei Tran knew Duch but they never shared a meal. The witness did not know how many staff members there would have been at Kraing Ta Chan. Dam was a prisoner who was allowed to move around doing his duties such as sweeping the ground and watering vegetables. There were no resolution ceremonies at the security center. He did not know of two women from a mobile unit coming to the prison and did not, therefore, know their names. And the witness would not be swayed: He did not hear any music being played over loud speakers. He could hear the screaming from the guard post if it was loud enough but the guards were ordered to stay at the guard post and not allowed near the interrogations.
In contrast to his testimony of the morning, Mr. Srei attested that he “did not witness tortured prisoners with (his) own eye.” The Civil Party Party lawyer did not distinguish the statement from what he had said earlier. But, Judge Lavergne caught it as noted hereinafter.
Judge Lavergne was obviously puzzled by some holes in Mr. Srei’s testimony regarding his chain of command. Mr. Srei told him that his commanders were Ta and Mean and that his regiment had no fixed base. It was constantly mobile serving in various villages ranging from 80 kilometers to 100 kilometers from the center. His unit had received its orders designating them to carry out guard duty and where, before they were deployed. He only saw his superiors once in the four to five months he was at Kraing Ta Chan. A messenger (the only means of communication with his regiment), came to call him to a meeting at headquarters. The judge also wanted to know how Srei Than’s status had gone from being a guard to a typist. The witness said he was called to assist by either Ta An or Ta Duch but that he did not become staff at Kraing Ta Chan. He would help out for a short time and then return to his guard duty. The judge asked “if Ta An and Ta Duch were not his superiors and his duty was to guard, why did he accept the typing task?”The inquiry was not answered directly. Mr. Srei admitted Ta An and Ta Duch did not have the authority but he would go when they called him to help as he was literate and could type. The judge was seemingly dubious about this professed ability and grilled him as to where and when he had learned to type. The witness claimed he had taught himself to type in the school library when he was about 13 or 14 but had not practiced it until called upon at Kraing Ta Chan. He “was fearful at the beginning because (his) skill was very limited.” Several others had engaged in the typing before him but he claimed he was the last to do typing. When Judge Lavergne questioned him about how far his guard post was from the security center, Mr. Srei said, at first, he was about 1 kilometer away (this morning he had said 6 kilometers away), and that his later assignment took him to the gate of the security center, a compound of about 150 square meters. His post was actually inside the fence adjacent to the east gate. The witness confirmed to the judge that he had not heard music over loudspeakers or seen any loudspeakers or any injured prisoners.
When Mr. Srei had seen prisoners “let out” of Kraing Ta Chan, he knew they had not gone home as they were still tied up. Others came to get them but he did not know to where they were taken. No documents were necessary to escort the prisoners away as the men who came for them were in uniform.
Mr. Srei left Kraing Ta Chan in July, 1978, to return to his unit. He has never seen any of the former staff and only saw one former prisoner, Say Sen, for one “social meeting.”
Judge Lavergne asked the witness if he has fond or unpleasant memories of Kraing Ta Chan, a clever question. Mr. Srei was vehement that “for the rest of (his) life, (he) did not want to remember (his) bitter experiences” at the prison. He denied being a cadre, claimed he “knew little,” saw little but “just heard.” The judge summarized: That Mr. Srei “saw little, heard a few howls, and has a lot of regret.” Srei Tran said he “was young, do(es) not remember things, do(esn’t) remember what happened to others.” The judge probed: “What did he regret and why was his stay at Kraing Ta Chan so difficult?” The witness said he had regret in respect to himself and also for the people who had been detained at “the prison without walls.” He was like “a horse with covered eyes that can only see in one direction.”
Mr. Koppe picked up the story reading in from another’s Southwest Zone cadre’s testimony that Grandfather Mok issued an order that “the commune sector did not have the authority to arrest and kill people.” And further, that, in 1975, after another meeting, Mok had announced that ranks from second lieutenant to colonels were not to be harmed. But Mr. Srei claimed he never attended any meeting so did not know if that had been said. He knew Ta Mok’s name although he had never met him. Neither did he know if Grandmother Ngor was still at the prison when he left, and he did not remember her children, Meas Surat or Meas Sokar. If that was the case, Mr. Koppe questioned how the witness could then testify that Meas Pon was no relation to the three women. Backtracking, Mr. Srei said he had just heard their names but did not know them and he did not know if Say Sen was related to Meas Surat’s husband. He did not know where Say Sen lived. (Pursuant to the order for protective measures, the name of village cited is omitted from this record). And, no, he has not spoken to Ngor, Surat, Sokar or any other prisoner or guard from Kraing Ta Chan.
After the break, Co-Prosecutor Lysak raised a serious concern for the court. He noted that the Nuon Chea Defence Team had put 557 documents on the interface since Friday and yet the first document Mr. Koppe’s used in his examination of the day was not there. Mr. Lysak questioned whether Mr. Koppe was acting in good faith.
Mr. Koppe refuted that the document was missing, that he had specifically instructed his legal consultants to post it. He insisted that it was on the interface.
Mr. Lysak insisted it was not there and that Mr. Koppe’s team had “broken the interface.”
As he saw it, there were two problems: The apparent lack of good faith and the problem of the capacity of the interface.
Marie Guiraud, Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer chimed in that “the interface must be viewed as a tool (they) can use. When volume is significant, then parties can point to a document being on the interface. It is reasonable to use them the day before the testimony.”
Mr. Koppe spelled out that he had just received binders of disclosures and prepared the witness over the weekend. To avoid any more objections, he had posted all the documents on the interface.
Judge Fenz declared that the bench was still in the process of preparing guidelines on use of the interface. She said counsel had to either act in good faith or the alternative was micro-management which she did not think would be in anybody’s interest. This might involve a necessity of extending the notice time for use of documents put on the interface.
On determining from Mr. Koppe that he only wanted to use three documents immediately, Judge Lavergne, obviously not amused, wanted to know: “How does this (posting 557 documents) correspond to good faith?” Mr. Koppe then expanded to some 15 the number of documents he wished to examine on right away. Judge Lavergne directed him to forward the details of them to all the parties so they could find them on the interface. He canvassed the parties to see whether they would need an adjournment to read the papers. Mr. Koppe objected to the Co-Prosecutors being given extra time. He argued that the prosecutors know the documents as “they have been on the case file forever.” Mr. Lysak chose to proceed.
Mr. Koppe reviewed the witness’s involvement in the taking of Takeo town in 1975. Mr. Srei said there was no fighting. The Lon Nol soldiers just surrendered under white flags. Takeo town is about 30 -40 kilometers from Kraing Ta Chan, he thought. Mr. Srei identified the signature on four documents that Mr. Koppe showed him as being that of Ta An. Mr. Koppe referenced the last document which held that 15,000 prisoners had been smashed at the security center. Mr. Koppe disagreed with Mr. Srei when the witness had said he knew it was Ta An’s because Ta An’s name was underneath the signature. The lawyer pointed out this signature was nothing like the other three, and submitted that this document was a post-1979 creation. Mr. Srei admitted that he did not remember the specific handwriting from the fourth example.
Mr. Srei said the format he was shown on a fifth document was “not similar at all” to the documents with which he had dealt. Mr. Koppe read in at length from a series of five documents purporting to be evidence that, before the communes sent people to Kraing Ta Chan, they had attempted to re-educate them, and that the ones who ended up as prisoners were “the lost cases in the cause of re-education.” But as Srei Than had not gone to any meetings with Ta An, he was not aware of this and did not know why people had been sent to the security center.
Mr. Koppe had a good point. He was curious as to why, if 99% of the prisoners were smashed, did the administration have them tortured? Mr. Srei said he “could not respond…as (he) did not know what they did or what their policies were.” He did contend that the prisoners that had been “sent out,” in 1978, “were new prisoners. All of the old ones were smashed.”
The defense counsel read in from Say Sen’s testimony the accusation that Mr. Srei had “participated in atrocities” by sexually abusing women and killing two children. Srei Than justified that he could not “respond to the question because (he) did not do it and did not know it so how could (he) respond.” He “did not know” if Say Sen “had made up a story.” He forcefully rejected Say Sen’s further accusations that “Duch… was one of the most wicked of the guards…cruel and brutal,” terming the description “incorrect.” Likewise, he rejected that he had raped a female prisoner, a night cook, saying this was “not correct… fabricated.” He offered as proof he could not have done it as rape was prohibited. “Someone who raped would not be spared.” Mr. Srei had no explanation for Say Sen’s motives. He doesn’t “know what he wanted.” The President objected to Mr. Koppe’s reading in another description of rape from Say Sen’s statement to DC-Cam asking if the “counsel was establishing facts or putting questions? “
Judge Fenz also criticised Mr. Koppe for a slip up, reminding all that there are “clear protective measures in place that include not using addresses directly or indirectly.” As with the other descriptions of rape and killings, Mr. Srei said of this one that “it was a false accusation…a fabrication.”
Nuon Chea National Defence Counsel, Suon Visal, asked Mr. Srei to define the details of his posting to Kraing Ta Chan. They had been simple: to guard Education Office 105. He had “received no policies for smashing enemies or suppressing prisoners.” And, once more, that he initially had worked far from the prison but then was moved to guard at the center fence. Some prisoners worked outside the detention buildings doing such things as carrying earth, and transplanting and harvesting rice. In a big contradiction to several prior witnesses, he said only the prison guards tended the cows and not the prisoners. Srei Than, for a last time, maintained that no one was allowed to go near the interrogations, including the “light offence prisoners.” His final point of information for the day was that no one managed to successfully flee Kraing Ta Chan.
Mr. Lysak noted that the Nuon Chea team had listed 752 entries for the next witnesses and requested that they notify all parties by email exactly which ones they would actually be using.
The President ordered lists to be given, starting from tomorrow. Court adjourned.