A Teenage Cadre at Kraing Ta Chan Has Difficulties Keeping His Story Straight
The third day on the stand for Vann Soan (alias “Suan”) was one challenge after another as prosecutors and defence alike explored the inconsistencies in his testimony with that of prior witnesses and, indeed, of his own evidence. The once-teenage guard at Kraing Ta Chan was not having an easy day of it.
The hearing opened with the Chamber’s announcement that they had notified all parties that witness 2TCW803 would not be heard as originally planned. This was due to the Co-Prosecutors release of disclosures, and defence problems of time and capacity to review the documents. The witness will be rescheduled to appear in due course. WESU was directed to return the witness 2TCW803 back to his residence to await recall. Before turning the floor over defence counsel, the President stated that a trial management meeting would be held on the ongoing process of disclosure of documents.
Mr. Koppe continued his examination of Vann Soan by asking him to verify the accuracy of a map of Kraing Ta Chan that was drawn by Srei Thorn (alias “Duch”). Mr. Vann complained it was hard to visualize with north being at the bottom of the sheet but that he could pick out several errors nevertheless: The entrances should have been at the corners; placement of the buildings was inaccurate as they should have been aligned east to west; the interrogation room was 30 meters south of the entrance. The notorious radio and its speakers were located on a table at the Chief’s office in the center of the compound.
Mr. de Wilde objected to Mr. Koppe query as to in which of the two buildings Ngor and Surat were detained at night on the grounds that the witness had testified previously that there were three buildings, not two. Mr. Koppe accepted his suggestion that he reformulate the question and Mr. Vann replied that the women were in the second building after the entrance on the south of the compound. He confirmed they were only held in at night (not always together), and were let out to work during the day. Counsel questioned Mr. Vann’s explanation that the mother and daughter were not always held together because they were not at the center at the same time as the evidence was clear that both were there for the same two and a half years. The witness backtracked pleading ignorance about what went on during the night inside the compound as he had then been guarding outside. He did know that Surat had helped Ngor with the cooking during the day, one session in the morning and another session in the afternoon.
Vann Soan had had casual chit chats with Surat over “nothing of an important nature.” He did not know anything about Surat being physically attacked by guards or cadres, and he felt he would have given that he, Surat and Ngor were “very close.” Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer Marie Guiraud interrupted to warn counsel that there was a ruling to be cautious about referring to people by name who may have been the victims of sexual assault. Names are not to be disclosed, and she requested that the rule be applied. Mr. Koppe was not sure what the difference was between exposing victims of sexual assault and naming the possible perpetrators of atrocities such as mass executions, the killing of children, and the eating of organs. He further offered that it was not known if Surat had any concerns about her privacy in this issue. But, if the rule was to be applied, then counsel was requesting a closed chamber in order to examine this witness about sexual assaults. Mr. Koppe maintained that it “goes to the reliability and credibility of this one witness.”
Judge Fenz delivered the court’s response to the objection: “Firstly and generally, the general order issued by the Chamber regarding sexual assault stands.” She went on to say that the Chamber wished to consult the transcript before issuing a specific decision so counsel would be allotted time after the break to continue with the problematic line of questioning, if necessary.
The cross-examination was quickly derailed again when Co-Prosecutor Vincent de Wilde objected to Mr. Koppe asking the witness “to react” to Say Sen’s claims that Duch and other members of the guard unit were involved in sexual assaults, rapes, and the execution of children.
His point was that Mr. Vann “was not in a position to take a position” over whether Say Sen was lying as Say Sen had access to much more of the compound than Vann Soan had had.
Mr. Koppe broadened the issue. He proposed that “it is time for all parties including the Trial Chamber to visit Kraing Ta Chan.” He felt, as it is a very small site, everyone would understand, if they saw it, that it “was literally impossible…incomprehensible that Say Sen saw things that the guards did not.”
Judge Fenz agreed with the defence counsel’s own admission that he “was testifying” and asked him to formulate his request to go to Kraing Ta Chan in such a fashion that it could be argued.
Mr. Koppe averred that if the Chamber could see the security center “it would dawn on the Chamber that the idea that one would not be able to see the executions, see the pits, (experience) the awful smell from decomposing bodies, would mean that either Meas Sokha is lying or the guards are lying.”
Ms. Guiraud declared that she had visited Kraing Ta Chan “and reached different conclusions” from Mr. Koppe’s which she termed “subjective and partial.” She “assumed that the court has enough basis to assess the relevance of this witness’s testimony today.”
Mr. de Wilde had “no particular opinion” on the matter. It was important to him to know how the buildings were arranged but those buildings are not there today. He would take into consideration that the witness was young at the time, he was a messenger, and the lawyer “would work within the framework of his team.”
The President suspended the request to visit the site for a ruling in due course. He then sustained the last question and Mr. Koppe moved on to a different subject but still within the scope of Say Sen’s testimony. He and Mr. de Wilde sparred over the process of framing questions about Mr. Vann’s observations of Mr. Say’s duties. The Co-Prosecutor wanted the counsel to quote what Say Sen had said; Mr. Koppe countered that “for speed of the proceedings” he would try and give a description of a task. Judge Lenz fell on the side of exactness.
Mr. Vann did not see Say Sen: count prisoners, dig pits for dead prisoners; unshackle and remove corpses from buildings; strip clothes from corpses; guard prisoners working on the outside; or carry prisoners after their interrogations. Refreshingly, he did see Say Sen (along with Ngor and Surat) distribute food to prisoners. Mr. Vann was firm that it was the “only thing” that he saw Say Sen do. But, he could smell and was able to identify the odour of human corpses. It was “a stink, awful, everywhere inside the compound site.” It was coming from the burial pits south of the security center. (He digressed to describe the center as “not large:” 70 meters square with an outside perimeter of 300 square meters). Mr. Vann “had not dared to ask” about how the prisoners had died, whether it was from execution or disease or whatever. When he had walked past and said he smelled something, he was told that it could be a dead dog or chickens.
The witness was not aware that Kraing Ta Chan had been a gravesite before 1973. Mr. Vann did not know of prisoners being transferred to other security centers in the zone or the region as Duch had testified.
Nuon Chea National Defence Counsel, Suon Visal, wanted to know if his unit had been transferred to Kraing Ta Chan under the direct order of his commander. Mr. Vann negated this. The security center had made the request for assistance in guarding. After the reassignment, the unit did not maintain contact with the military commander, and Ta An became Vann Soan’s immediate supervisor. Mr. Vann did not patrol but only stood guard at the outside entrance and acted as a messenger. The only times he had gone into the inner compound of the center were for meals. He was told to enter from the east and go directly to the dining hall.
Admittedly, he wandered around to see the other buildings, but he did not go into the interrogation room. Mr. Vann saw no Vietnamese, Kampuchea Krom or Cham at the center.
After the break, Kong Sam Onn used valuable examination time discussing exactly when Mr. Vann’s father had died. Mr. Vann was adamant that both of his parents died within a week of each other only seven months ago, and that any information to the contrary was a mistake by an investigator. Mr. Vann acknowledged that his only relationship by blood or “in-law” with any of the other guard in his unit was with Sieng, an elder cousin who is also known as Sot Sieng. (He did not know whether Sieng had been interviewed by OCIJ). He did not think any of the other guards were related as siblings or cousins.
Mr. de Wilde objected to Mr. Kong’s not quoting exactly from transcripts on what Say Sen had said about how often executions took place. The defence counsel rephrased, but Mr. Vann could only attest to his prior statement that executions were held “once or twice a month.” He did not know anything further than that. Vann Soan had met Ta San in 1977 when he visited his parents’ cooperative at Leay Bor commune. They became acquainted during a lunch. Villagers (“from one person to another…”), had told him that Ta San was the new Tram Kok District Chief. This also had been confirmed officially by Ta An. When Ta An arrived at Kraing Ta Chan, he had said Ta San was the new District Chief. Mr.Vann and the other cadres only attended meetings with Penh. They met once a month about guarding, the rice fields, the plantation, and carrying earth from the pond. Contrary to Meas Sokha’s allegations that Vann Soan was present, Mr. Vann vehemently denied he ever attended any meeting where executions were discussed. He did not know if the other guards had because his work was different from theirs. His solution to the conflicting claims was to ask Grandmother Ngor, Meas Sokha’s mother, who would corroborate that he was not allowed into such meetings.
Prior to April 17, 1975, Lon Nol soldiers were known as “the enemy,” but, after the fall of Phnom Penh, this word was no longer in common usage. Mr. Kong asked why. Mr. Vann related that Ta An had said that they “were all Khmers and had to reconcile among ourselves to build the country.” Mr. Vann had heard Ta An say it when he was sharing their table at lunch and Ta An was talking to Penh.
Mr. Vann had learned of the “white scarves” (the Kampuchea Krom) from his cousin who had joined the “white scarves” to fight with Lon Nol soldiers against the Khmer Rouge in the 1971-1972 period. The witness knew nothing of the organization of this group, who their leaders were or their policies. The only other “white scarf” he had known was Som but he never discussed such matters with him before Som died.
Mr. Kong put Mr. Vann on the spot implying that the fact the witness knew there were no Lon Nol soldiers at Kraing Ta Chan as they had been sent back to their native villages, meant that the witness did know where at least some of the prisoners were from notwithstanding Mr. Vann’s repeated protestations to the contrary. Mr. Vann rebutted this contention stating that he had learned about the Lon Nol soldiers simply by word of mouth of his fellow combatants, “from one soldier to another.” Neither would Mr. Vann rise to the bait when Mr. Kong related Say Sen’s accusations that the witness and Sieng were “the most vicious killers,” and were “direct perpetrators.” Mr. Vann denied these charges, too, and any participation in other heinous activities such as transporting prisoners, torture, and walking prisoners to execution sites. Interestingly, he was silent on Mr. Say’s assertion that he and Sieng are “biological brothers,” and Mr. Kong did not follow up on the omission.
Just before lunch, Judge Nil Nonn announced that the afternoon agenda would be a closed session to examine Vann Suon on his knowledge of sexual assaults followed by an in camera trial management meeting. Court adjourned.