A Case of Too Little from a Guard and Too Much from the Prosecution

It was a case of too little new out of a witness but too much new out of the prosecutors’ office today at the ECCC. Vann Soan, alias “Suan,” who as a teenager had served as a guard and sometimes messenger at Krain Ta Chan, continued his testimony but added little information about what went on at the security center other than to deny various accusations made against him by other witnesses. On the other hand, files from Case 004 are being added to Case 002/02 at such a great rate that the defence is pleading for a postponement of some witnesses’ days in court to allow counsel time to consider the recently released evidence.

In the first new business for the day, Judge Nil Nonn addressed the court about measures to be taken to improve the level of the translations. The President brought to the attention of all parties that multiple or compound questions were not amenable to translation. He emphasized that they “create confusion preventing the orderly and expeditious conduct of proceedings.” His second point was to ask the parties to slow down, that the general rate of speech woas not conducive to proper translation. After the morning break, the President again reminded counsel to keep questions “simple and short,” underlining the seriousness with which the Chamber was treating the matter. These instructions were well received and, it was obvious from the improvement in intelligibility of the questions and answers, at least somewhat effective.

Co-Prosecutor Vincent de Wilde then continued with the testimony of Vann Soan. He began by showing Mr. Vann a single-page document purporting to be signed by Ta An in which the writer states: “so far, we have eliminated 15,000 enemies.” But, the witness could not “say for sure” that it was Ta An’s signature as “it’s been almost 40 years since he had seen his handwriting.” He did not recognize the signature.

Mr. de Wilde then read in from Mr. Vann’s interview a figure of 20-25 prisoners a month brought to Krain Ta Chan, and then contrasted that with a report from the security center citing that 75 prisoners were admitted in a month. Vann Soan’s reply to the discrepancy was that he “was not the one who made the statistics. The number (of prisoners) varied.” He did not know if there were periods of more executions than at other times as he “wasn’t there regularly and, in addition, (he) was the youngest in the unit and did not know what went on…as (he) was outside the compound most of the time.” The witness did agree that prisoners were sent in “almost on a daily basis,” and was able to define that “purged” meant “smashed…executed.” He further confirmed that one detention building was very old but that 50-60 people could be accommodate in each of the other two prisoner detention buildings. Mr. Vann did not see approximately 100 prisoners enter Kraing Ta Chan in one go.

Mr. Vann knew that relatives of Yeay Ngor (for example, Boeun) were killed on arrival at the security center and without detention or interrogation, although he did not see the executions.
He did not know who accompanied new prisoners to the external entrance because he did not see the prisoners being brought in. The prisoners were taken to a compound about one kilometer away from the compound and then walked over directly to Kraing Ta Chan. Vann Soan said there was no telephone or IPhone to notify the staff that new prisoners were on their way. The Co-Prosecutor asked twice if there was a bell rung to announce the arrival of more prisoners, but the witness did not answer. He digressed instead on there being two locks to open in order to give the prisoners entrance to the compound.

Mr. de Wilde quoted from an OCIJ interview that the witness had reported that he would deliver an envelope to the District Office and then someone else, “four or five days later” (altered to “a day or two later” in today’s testimony), would bring letters to Kraing Ta Chan. One of the messengers was “Horl,” (he was “short with white skin”), but Mr. Vann’s “communication” with the others “was not friendly and they did not talk.” In particular, he did not know “Hy Tom,” a 12-year old messenger working out of the District 105 office. ”

Vann Soan did not see any letters with names of the executed crossed out in red ink, but he noticed that, after he delivered envelopes to the District Office and letters were transferred back to the security center, the killings would start again. He thought the District made the decisions which executions were to be done.

Mr. Koppe, Nuon Chea Defence Counsel, objected on the basis that the questions are speculative: The witness did not see the contents of the envelopes, therefore, did not know what was in them.

Mr. de Wilde replied that the questions were based on Vann Soan’s prior statements and he was merely summarizing what the witness had said. He pointed out that he had not actually asked a question yet but was just reading statements. Mr. Vann corroborated that each time a letter came from the District, executions would followed. Ta An had never told them in meetings that executions would take place without the witness seeing a messenger arriving at Kraing Ta Chan.

The Co-Prosecutor then read in a lengthy passage from an OCIJ statement regarding the prison at Ang Roka: Arrests would be made at the commune level and the prisoners sent to the “district hall” for interrogation and then on to Kraing Ta Chan. The District Office interrogation site was 300-400 meters west of the market. When Mr. Vann delivered letters there, he had seen people detained and in shackles. He understood it to be a prison for “light offenders,” that “serious offenders” were sent to Kraing Ta Chan. “Meng” was both the interrogator and the administrator at Ang Roka. He “held no position” but “was supervisor of the prison.” Ang Roka prison was 60 by 70 meters and made of wood. He repeated that the “arrest authority” was at the commune level. “Cooperatives reported to the communes; militiamen made the arrests and then sent the prisoners to Ang Roka or Kraing Ta Chan.”

Mr. Vann did not know whether Ta An gave direct orders to Meng at Ang Roka. He had made two deliveries to Ang Roka but did not see Meng on either occasion. The witness did not answer a question as to how many prisoners were at Ang Roka but declared instead that they were there for “social problems, rape, or stealing chickens or cassava for food.” When queried if he knew if “April 17th people” or Lon Nol officials or soldiers fell into the “heavy offender” group and, thus, sent to Kraing Ta Chan, Vann Soan quoted “your hair is on your head.” The inference was that everyone had to be mindful of their own business so he did not know. Mr. Vann explained that although people had been categorized into “17th April people” and “18th April people,” there was no distinction in treatment for those having committed wrong doing. “Light offenders” were “given instruction” in meetings and then returned to their cooperatives. He maintained that they were not executed.

The witness was shown a letter from San to Choeun describing children not separated from mothers and a group of widows, and then requesting permission to “sweep them all clean.” Van Soan attested that San was the District Chief of Tram Kok, Choeun was one of the infamous six party members at Kraing Ta Chan, and that “sweeping clean” was another euphemism for executing. But, he did not know anything about what happened to the widows or women with children.

Mr. de Wilde asked Vann Soan if the Meng in a note concerning a Thach Ang (a Kampuchea Krom corporal) and Sao Phon (a Chief Sargeant found with $10,000 and some forged travel documents), was the Meng from Ang Roka prison but the witness knew nothing about any such matters. Neither did he know if there were former Lon Nol soldiers and officials at Kraing Ta Chan because he was just in the guard unit.

Mr. Vann recounted that the guards were given firearms (AK 47’s and M16 rifles) at night but that they were collected in the morning. The weapons were then stored in an “arsenal,” a wooden box, apparently under the charge of Ta An as “Ta An was in charge of everything inside the compound.” The poles and bamboo clubs used in executions were kept with the clubs and rattan whips used in interrogations at the interrogation place. Vann Soan did not answer how he knew these were the executioners’ tools of trade, and the Co-Prosecutor did not follow up on the lack of response. The interrogation room was about 30 meters south of Ta An’s office and west of a kitchen. The witness observed three or four interrogations from this kitchen and had seen beatings, suffocations with plastic bags and people “dying on the spot” as reported by Sim but he did not know anything about “hot and cold methods” of torture. Executions were conducted south of the kitchen. Mr. Vann alleged he was guarding the outside perimeter during executions but knew from meetings that prisoners were being killed as Ta An, who chaired the meetings, would tell the guard to be careful and not allow anyone to escape during this time. He does “not recall very well” children being killed, and listed Yeay Ngor and her children as examples of children released with their mothers. He concurred with the Co-Prosecutors estimate that “fewer than ten people were released,” and that “a huge majority were liquidated.” The witness said that released prisoners went back to their home villages.

Mr. Vann noted Say Sen’s production of jugs of sour sugar palm. Because he was
young, he did not partake of it, but, three party members Sieng, Moeun and
Chhieng, had enjoyed the alcohol. He never saw any gallbladders being added to it, and knows
nothing about this use of organs.

Moving on, Mr. de Wilde read in from the witness’s prior interview an outline of the wretched conditions of the prisoners: that they were sometimes kept in handcuffs (either automatic ones used for tying two prisoners together or eight-shaped cuffs used on one prisoner’s wrists); that prisoners were not allowed to clean up after relieving themselves; and the deaths after torture and severe beatings, from insect bites, from illness, but mainly from hunger. Mr. Vann did not know why prisoners were made to suffer from lack of water, food and medical care, and did not know “the plan for doing so.” Prisoners who died were removed by people who worked inside the compound. Ta Chin was one of these until he died.

At the end of his examination, the Co-Prosecutor had one last question of Mr. Vann: Were his memories of Kraing Ta Chan painful, and, if so, why? Vann Soan “feel(s) the pain.” He had four uncles and an aunt who were detained and died at Kraing Ta Chan before he was assigned to work there.

Civil Party Co-Lawyer Chet Vanly referred to Vann Soan’s OCIJ record that he would be in trouble if people fled and the guards did not catch them. Mr. Soan said that he meant that the guards had been told that they would be arrested and detained in place of escaped prisoners, “a serious burden.” He only knew about his assignment to guard the outside perimeter, “those inside had the duty to kill the prisoners.” He reiterated that he was outside the compound at the time of the executions which were carried out by the six party members: An, Penh, Chhieng, Moeun, Choeun and Chhun. He was aware that Khorn and Ruos had been at Kraing Ta Chan pre his arrival in 1975 but he knew nothing about what their roles had been. He did not know whether Khorn was an executioner, only that Khorn had returned from Vietnam. Because Mr. Vann had had uncles killed at the security center, he had tried to research what was going on there but “was told not to speak of it.” Further, he was “mostly not there” during the interrogations having been sent to water or plant vegetables at those times. Mr. Vann did not answer as to how he knew that the interrogators beat prisoners with clubs and suffocated them with plastic bags. He was not aware of prisoners being forced to dig pits. That “was the internal business of people in the compound.”

No “specific details” other than instructions just to catch CIA agents were given to Mr. Vann’s unit during the month they were posted in the village. But “there were no signs of CIA agents.” CIA agents were identified as being “infiltrators into the ranks.” The term “enemy” referred to traitors. It was applied to those who stole chickens, potatoes or cooking utilities from the cooperatives. He had no understanding of the situation of enemies in the cooperatives as he “had no involvement with the army at the base.” There were supposed to be hundred-man strong units in the district army but, in reality, usually only 50-70 men served in each and sometimes only ten men in a “fifty-man unit. While he was a district soldier, and particularly during the rainy season, he assisted by working in the rice fields of several communes.

On miscellaneous matters, Mr. Vann thought the “upper echelon” made the decisions on executions. He had not joined the youth league or become a party member because he was so young.

Civil Party International Co-Lawyer Marie Guiraud, was focused on the treatment of women at Kraing Ta Chan. She asked if women were undressed during interrogations. Vann Soan did not see that sort of interrogation, the removal of nipples or the use of pliers. He did contribute that he has an aunt who, during her three-year detention, was hung by the neck and still bears the scars from it. He does not know if women were treated differently than men during interrogations as he was not there.

Judge Lavergne needed to have the guard unit members distinguished. One Duch was from the District and Vann Soan did not know what his duties were other than he was Chief of the Youth Unit. The other, Little Duch (also known as Surat,) was a guard. Sieng and Sim were in different units at Damrei Romiel mountain but they joined Mr. Vann’s unit at the village. Little Duch was with Mr. Vann from Takeo to the mountain to the village to Kraing Ta Chan. The witness was at Kraing Ta Chan until 1979 but Little Duch was removed earlier. When they were at the security center, the unit had taken their orders from Ta An. When they were under the army, they had taken their orders from their commander. Both Little Duch and Ta An typed.

Mr. Vann verified that he heard loudspeakers (described as “small and square”) playing music when the executions were underway. He could not confirm from his personal knowledge the unsanitary conditions in the detention buildings caused by the bugs as he had never entered those prisoner areas.

Kong Sam Onn interrupted to remind the court that it was 11:40AM and his client, Khieu Samphan, “needs a proper rest.” Judge Lavergne slipped in one further query and Mr. Vann was able to recollect that the District Hospital did come once to spray to kill insects that preyed on the prisoners.

The President commenced the afternoon by informing the Chamber that the last twenty minutes of the session would be set aside to discuss the Nuon Chea Defence Team’s motion for an adjournment pending review of the documents from Case 004 being added to Case 002/02.
Judge Fenz added that the time allotted was not to deal with the complete motion but was devoted exclusively to the next witnesses and why they should be deferred. Mr. Koppe corrected the misunderstanding that all of the necessary pleadings had not be filed for a full hearing on the motion saying that, if the bench is accepting motions in one language, they have been. Judge Fenz said that the bench “was not complaining but our colleagues can’t read it.” Mr. Koppe proposed that it would be better to have the arguments in the morning then as he was expecting the translations probably sometime in the morning. Judge Fenz protested that “the next witnesses are already here,” to which the lawyer countered: “it is up to you to balance it.” Judge Lavergne stressed that the 20 minutes was for both the defense and the other parties.

The defence counsel moved on to clear up the relationships regarding two different Grandmother Ngor’s. One was Mr. Vann’s aunt; the other had been a prisoner at Kraing Ta Chan to whom Mr. Vann had so often given food that the woman credits him with her survival. Vann Soan sees his aunt once or twice a month but “lost contact” with the unrelated Ngor when she moved to live along the border. But the unrelated Ngor still invites him to religious ceremonies. It is a social relationship and they do not talk about the DK regime. Ngor told him that her daughter, Surat (whom he had met in 1979), had gone to study in Vietnam. When she returned, she got married and moved to the USA. He did not know when Surat had emigrated or in which city she now lives. Mr. Vann does not know anything about Say Sen’s relationship with the former-prisoner Grandmother Ngor. He has no contact with Say Sen whom he dismissed as having been a prisoner while he was at the security center. He does not know if Say Sen has another name and “Kut Sen” did not “ring a bell.” The witness did not know why Mon Boeun, Ngor’s son-in-law had been arrested, had heard nothing about allegations of Boeun raping Korn (“a 17th April person”), but he recollected Boeun as having been at the security center. Nor did he know why Meas Khun, Ngor’s husband, had been brought in or if he had had argument with a village chief. He cleared up that he was at Kraing Ta Chan and saw others bring in the family. The husbands arrived first and, after one or two weeks, the wives arrived. Mr. Vann did not see the prisoners walked from interrogation to the detention room, their interrogation, or the wives in shackles in detention as he did not enter the compound.

And back to the elusive “foot of the mountain” Mr. Koppe went in his long search to determine the location of executions held there. But, to no avail. Mr. Vann’s ‘foot of the mountain’ apparently was a different place than the execution site. The witness knew that prisoners, on just one occasion, had been transported out of the security center but he did not know to which mountain they had been taken. It had been night, there were no lights and he could not see how many prisoners left on the one truck which he had been assigned to guard while it was parked outside the compound.

Phy visited Kraing Ta Chan often. He was referred to as “handicapped Phy” but Vann Soan did not know anything about whether or not his leg had been amputated. Phy “only talked to high leaders.” The witness did not know if Phy had been executed in 1979 or 1980.

Neither did Mr. Vann know how the powers determined who was a “light offender” and who was a “serious offender.” He learned of the distinction from Sieng, another guard, who had warned him “to be cautious of serious offenders.” Sieng would know this as he was a party member.

Mr. Vann had told the OCIJ investigators that the Lon Nol soldiers had been sent back to their home towns. He knew from hearing others talking that there were no Lon Nol soldiers or officers in detention at the security center.

Counsel invited Mr. Vann to explain what he had meant in a prior interview that he thought he had never been allowed to see any killings because they “always feared a breach of secrecy.” The witness said they were afraid, because of his youth, that if he “met somebody that (he) would talk about this so they didn’t let (him) know.” Vann Soan did not receive an order per se but had been told that he “should shut (his) mouth.” He was “threatened and warned not to let anything out of (his) mouth or (he) would be in danger.” Mr. Vann was told his “head would fall down on the earth.” Similarly, he was not allowed to make contact with people outside of the compound but he did not know whether Say Sen or Meas Sokar had received the same instructions not to speak to villagers. Mr. Vann thought he got such specific instructions as he was the youngest in his unit but he did not know what orders, if any, the other guards may have had. In the army, the commander issued orders. At Kraing Ta Chan, in practice, meetings were held where plans were formulated and then disseminated to all members. Ta An instructed them to “be gentle but firm” with prisoners. Mr. Vann admitted that he really “did not understand” what the order meant although it was given repeatedly during the monthly guard meetings and was “one of the main points raised.” They “didn’t give too many instructions…only on the main points.”

Due to much confusing testimony, after the break it was clarification time again. Mr. Vann confirmed he never saw any killings or “anybody die in front of him.” Mr. de Wilde objected as speculative to Mr. Koppe’s question as to why Meas Sokar and Say Sen had witnessed killings and Vann Soan had not.
Mr. Koppe shot back that “This prosecutor is the last one in the room who should object to speculation,” that it “is within the realm of what is possible.” Judge Fenz separated the children in the sandbox. She castigated Mr. Koppe stating in no uncertain terms that the Chamber “doesn’t appreciate the insult to the prosecutor. Stop that.” Then, she allowed the question.
Vann Soan could only say that he could not see from his guard position of outside the compound as there were two levels of fence and “a lot of bananas” in the way. When the counsel said that others left the compound, too, but saw lots of things, Mr. de Wilde objected that Mr. Koppe was trying to suggest that Meas Sokar only tended cows when in fact he had many roles that took him around the compound and that, therefore, “the question leads the witness into error.”

Mr. Koppe tried a different tack and went on to sleeping arrangements. The guards did not sleep in the inner compound but close to the fence. Mr. Vann denied Say Sen’s accusations that four or five cadres raped a female prisoner or that Sieng and Little Duch could have committed rape. Mr. Vann knew about the killings but did not think there were rapes at Kraing Ta Chan, and affirmed Mr. Koppe’s assessment that “Say Sen has been lying before this Chamber.” Because he was outside the compound, Mr. Vann did not know of children being killed or of any members of his unit who would have been involved in such atrocities. With second thoughts, he then acknowledged he “wouldn’t know of rapes if (he) was away.” Further, he was not friends with his unit members and “sometimes (they) did not get along together.” As Mr. Vann knew nothing about cadres eating livers and gallbladders, Mr. Koppe requested the court’s permission to play a graphic video which he hoped would jog the witness’s memory. Mr. de Wilde was quick to object as he had viewed the excerpt and found it related to extracted organs, about which Mr. Vann already has testified he knows nothing. A quick bench consultation later and Judge Fenz rejected “the request to show the video to this witness at this time” on the basis that “relevance had not been shown at this point of time for this witness.” Mr. Koppe’s further plea that he sought to establish if such a use of organs was a long standing practice, particularly if it was engaged in by Lon Nol troops, did not get far. The judge found that “additional arguments by defense had not convinced the Chamber and the ruling stands.”

In an apparent contradiction to his morning testimony as to what he had seen from the kitchen, Mr. Vann was clear that, in his three years at Kraing Ta Chan, he did not witness interrogations as during those times he was asked to guard the outside perimeter. Likewise, he denied ever speaking about interrogations to his other unit members on the basis that it “was not (their) duty so didn’t speak about it.”As only party members worked inside the compound, Mr. Vann did not understand how Meas Sokar would be in a position to view interrogations.

Mr. Vann resolved some of the confusion about the loudspeakers with his description of two removable, small speakers (each10 cm. wide) on each side of a 40 cm. wide “player” used to listen to domestic radio broadcasts. As the speakers could only be heard to about 15 meters away, the witness did not think that they were used to drown out screams during executions.

At 3:40 PM, the President informed the witness that the balance of his testimony was being postponed until 9 AM, tomorrow, March 5, 2015, so the Chamber could deal with the Nuon Chea Defence request. The formal request had not yet been translated into Khmer but the court was willing to proceed with it on an urgent basis in regard to the next two witnesses (2TCW903 and 2TCW809) but would not hear argument on any other witnesses.

Mr. Koppe began his application by pointing out that “everything is tied together but the magnitude of the new evidence coming in (leaves him in a position where it )is no longer responsible to continue with the crime sites in the Southwest Zone and the North.” It was not his intention to slow down the proceedings so he was suggesting that they continue with other Kraing Ta Chan witnesses and other witnesses who would be testifying about “the grassroots, what happened on the ground.” The lawyer cited that in the new disclosures from Case 004: sector 13 was mentioned 69 times; District 105: 8 times; Office 204: 35 times; Tram Kok: 112 times. He pled that Case 004 is about District 105 and Sector 13. What he needed was for the proceedings to “step away but to continue with guards and other prisoners so no irreparable damage would be done.” He argued that “it’s such a fundamental debate of 003 and 004 entering case 002” that he proposed discussing the issue at length at a case management meeting. In particular, Mr. Koppe felt tomorrow’s witness should not be called but rather a cadre or guard take the stand.

Kong Sam Onn put in that there was an issue of long translation times that were prohibiting the Khieu Samphan defence team’s access to documents. All the new documents were coming out in English and Khmer and he needed them in French. (At lunch, he had received two new binders).

The President directed Mr. Kong to get back on topic, that what was presently under discussion was about whether to delay hearing the next witness’s testimony as it is difficult for the court to arrange rescheduling.

Mr. Kong insisted that his complaint was relevant. If the cadres from Kraing Ta Chan are to testify, he needs access to the documents on Kraing Ta Chan. And he“needs an adjournment and appropriate time to read thousands of pages.”

Judge Lavergne raised that most of the materials had been released in October and November of last year and that the court had given the parties a break in order to read them.

Mr. Koppe refuted that the five or six binders he had received last Thursday were evidence from October. He cannot read the 3,000 pages that have been released in the last two weeks in time to prepare the slated witnesses.

Co-Prosecutor Dale Lysak agreed that there was a need for more discussion on broader issues but had a couple of observations: Witness 809 was postponed until almost the end of the month already; the Defence had failed to show reason why to postpone the next witness. Mr. Lysak said only ten interviews relate to Tram Kok and Kraing Ta Chan and only one to the upcoming witness. That is “the sum total of evidence relating to upcoming witnesses.” Mr. Lysak disputed that “good cause” had been shown, and averred that there is no cause to delay the testimony. He said the statements delivered today were not new statements but were translations of previously disclosed interviews. “All (he has) heard is a general complaint about the number of documents.” But, Case 002 involves over 20,000 documents. He suggested that if 2 ½ days is not enough time to read all the new disclosures, then the defence team’s should divide them up.

Ms. Guiraud declared that the civil parties are willing to hear witness “803” and “will rely on the court’s wisdom” in this, but they are facing “practical difficulties” for which they also back the call for a trial management meeting. The practical difficulties they are experiencing relate to the use of documents which they cannot photocopy, therefore cannot read over the weekend and interns cannot read them. The civil parties need discussion on conditions on the use of documents.

Mr. Koppe was frank declaring that his team “can’t do it.” It is “not responsible or in the realm of the capacity of the defence.” He pleaded they go forward with an alternative witness. Mr. Koppe ended with “this was the first time (he has) said in two years that (he) was not able to do something.”

The President reserved the decision for on or before the hearing of the two scheduled witnesses, and court adjourned late at 4:06 PM.