San is ‘Pure as the Driven Snow’
Just in case all interested parties outside as well as inside the Trial Chamber did not get the message yesterday, Neang Ouch (“San” to all of his victims), reminded his audience at least nine times that he was innocent of any allegations of atrocities tied to his name. All he had done was to follow the orders of the “upper echelon,” Ta Ron and Sam Bith. Mr. Neang merely wrote down their decisions. Neang Ouch went so far as to accuse Ta Ron of ordering him to write the death sentences so he could be the scapegoat for his superiors.
The day opened on a contentious note. Suon Visal, Nuon Chea National Defence Counsel, attempted to make an application to the court concerning Judge Lavergne “playing the role of prosecutor” and using one-half day yesterday to examine the witness, Neang Ouch. An incensed President Nil Nonn cut him short in mid-sentence telling him in no uncertain words that he was “not entitled to criticize the Bench,” that “under the court procedures and Cambodian law, the Bench can put questions at any time.” He directed that it was time for the counsel to proceed with questioning the witness. Suon Visal retorted that he would “file an appeal to the Supreme Court at a later stage.”
Mr. Suon’s cross-examination of Neang Ouch was no more successful than his approach to the Bench. No new information was elicited from the witness after a redundant review of Mr. Neang’s positions and duties, ration supplies and medical care for the workers, and matching of spouses. Mr. Neang refuted that the lawyer’s statement that his three main tasks were economics, politics and social work, protesting that he only did what he was assigned and had previously described. Neither had the witness heard of any threats to smash the Cham or measures taken against the Vietnamese. He was not aware of any Kampuchea Krom in Tram Kok district or of any of them being returned to Vietnam or “smashed”.
Nuon Chea International Defence Counsel, Victor Koppe took over. In light of another witness’s testimony being inconsistent to his, Neang Ouch confirmed that, in his “personal knowledge, ‘to sweep clean’ or ‘purge’ meant to kill or execute.” After a long exculpation for his part in the issuance of orders from Sector, Mr. Neang revealed he did not know what ultimately happened to the five widows referenced in Document 834093 (which he had signed) as being recommended for ‘sweeping clean.’
Mr. Koppe next quizzed on how the witness could have written a note dated August 7th that was attached to a report dated August 8th. Mr. Koumjian objected on the basis that this was “not a fair statement.” He disputed that the August 7th document referred to a report from Meng on August 8th but rather that it implicated an earlier report. Mr. Koppe replied that “the Prosecution is testifying but the question is for the witness to answer,” and the President decided he could proceed. Although he could not be sure as he could not remember the details, Mr. Neang said a possible explanation was that the forwarding note dated August 7th may not refer to Meng’s August 8th report. He did not answer why a request was being sent to Ta Chhoun, Chief of the Tram Kok District Office, rather than toTa Ron relevant as Mr. Neang claims he received all his instructions from Ta Ron. Mr. Koppe pressed the witness on why he was requesting someone on his own level do something with prisoners. Mr. Neang rejected that he was making “a request” but rather was forwarding “an order implementing Ta Ron’s order” (which, of course, was a decision he had no part in making but simply wrote down. Even “though related to Ta Mok, not obeying instructions would (have) risk(ed his) life”).
Neang Ouch did not know if any children who “could not be separated from their mothers” (as referenced in the one document he admits is in his handwriting) were ever found and killed. After he wrote down Ta Ron’s decision, he did “not know the consequences of what happened next.” After the morning break, he defined “children” not as babies but “younger children who could speak and walk.” He claimed “children that could not be separated from their mothers” referred to putting other children of 10-12 years of age in mobile units.
Mr. Koppe’s request to show the witness a set of documents handcrafted by his office purporting to illustrate how the witness may have attached a forwarding note to a report, became the focal point of an outsized discussion. After a big to-do about the prosecution wanting an opportunity to see the construction and expressing concerns about showing something to a witness that is not evidence but made by the defence, Mr. Koppe followed Judge Fenz’s suggestion that he just ask the question outright. As it turned out, Mr. Neang could not recall how he had attached his notes, and he could not tell from the evidentiary documents because they were not the originals.
Of a series of six documents Neang Ouch was asked to identify, he could confirm only one was in his handwriting and contained his signature. He did not know who the “San” was who had signed the other five documents, four of which he termed forgeries. (The fifth document was too poor a copy for him to identify one way or the other). This echoed an anonymous witness’s testimony quoted by Mr. Koppe concerning existence of false documents during the DK period. Mr. Neang knew the documents were forgeries because he did not recognize the handwriting or signatures.
Neang Ouch disclosed that Ta Mok was always mindful of food adequacy as he was a rice farmer. When Ta Mok learned of any situations where there were insufficient rations, “he would supply rice to the people from his warehouse.”
The witness detailed how when the people from Phnom Penh reached Tram Kok, they were divided and sent to villages based on the economic state of each village. The evacuees were “mingled together,” sent to live in the same houses as the villagers. When asked if there was discrimination against the Phnom Penh people, Neang Ouch said that he had not experienced any. When challenged that other 17th April witnesses had testified to the contrary, he replied that that “they have their own thoughts.” He knew of no discriminatory policies and had heard announcements that “all people were equal.”
Returning to the topic of consent to marriage, Mr. Neang was sure that arrangements varied between cooperatives. He knew names were crossed off lists of proposed partners, so thought there was a right of refusal to be married but he did not know much about it. The witness did not recall any principle or policy that people could be forced to be married. Mr. Neang gave an example of a woman from a mobile unit who, ten days after her marriage, refused to live with her husband. The spouses were “talked to by colleagues” and then got back together. Another time, a couple split after a month. The husband’s request to be remarried was denied because of his existing union. This couple also reunited but the wife later ran away again. In neither instance, were any of the spouses punished.
Post lunch, Mr. Koppe addressed the issue of scheduling of witnesses with which the Trial Chamber was seized. He felt that the witness in question “is very relevant,” and should be slated as soon as possible as she is expected “to describe evidence on the sector level.”
Counsel then picked up the story reading in from another witness’s statement regarding the demotion of “bad and uncivilized cooperative chairpersons.” But Neang Ouch had not experience of anyone removed or “sent back to be an ordinary person.” He surmised that this sort of behavior would be based on a case-by-case basis and could not comment as he did not know the village where this had happened. Cadres were told in study sessions at the sector and zone levels (and sometimes in Phnom Penh) “to do good things for the people, to work hard, and to provide food and shelter.” He could not bring to mind any punishment being meted out to cadres who had acted badly.
Neang Ouch agreed with excerpts revisited by defence counsel that delineated stealing food (especially because of hunger) and pottery as minor crimes; opposition to Angkar and rape were serious crimes; and that victims of crimes were not punished. Perpetrators of rape “were re-educated based on their level.”
Mr. Koppe was curious about the relationship between Ta Si, Chuchet (spelling?) and Ta Mok. Neang Ouch first met Ta Si at Pich Mountain when Ta Si tasked him with being in charge of education in Takeo, Kampot and Kampong Speu. He did not see him often after he returned to Tram Kok. Chuchet, Ta Si and Ta Mok had been on the same zone committee. The witness did not know when Ta Si became leader of the West Zone or what Chuchet’s position was towards Vietnam. He knew Chuchet’s wife as Yeay Kley (spelling?) not Emna (spelling?) and did not know if “Emna” was her alias. Because of the distance between the zones and the lack of telephones, Mr. Neang did not learn that Chuchet had been sent to S-21 and executed in May, 1978. A visibly- upset witness said he had fled into the jungle in the mountains and protested that he could not possibly have known that.
Mr. Neang did not know if there was any relation between Chuchet and Som, Ta Khith or Penh.
He did not know Moen or his sister Neery Boeun (spelling?) but did remember Keo from back in 1970. Penh fled to the forest and later died of illness in Kampot. Overall, he had little information about Chuchet’s network.
Nuon Chea was Brother Number Two but he did not take orders from Pol Pot. Ta Mok was the second in line to get orders from Brother Number One and likely Brother Number Three in the organizational structure. Son Sen was under Ta Mok and in charge of the general staff of the army. Neang Ouch did not know the details of the positions after the purges. He not been at a meeting in which Pol Pot called “the betrayal in the zones…traitorous,” but did attend a packed
Pagoda hall (of approximately 100 people) where Nuon Chea spoke but he could not remember whether or not the leader had used the word “purges.” Mr. Neang professed to know nothing about the Military Committee (Pol Pot, Ta Mok and Soy Sen) within the Central Committee which appointed Meas Muth to the military. It was news to him that Som had been appointed to Foreign Affairs. The witness had not seen Som since 1977 when they had been in hospital in Phnom Penh together, he for his knee and Som for tuberculosis treatment. He had had frequent contact with Som after 1975 during monthly study sessions. During 1976, they would meet every two months or so. Mr. Neang could not remember anything about a letter issued by Pol Pot ordering executions to stop.
When Vietnamese troops entered Kampuchea, Neang Ouch fled to the mountains where he met similarly fleeing Kampuchea Krom under the supervision of Ta Pri (spelling?). As was not present during the visit of the Japanese delegation which was told by the DK that the Vietnamese were committing atrocities against the Kampuchea Krom, and he did not see it or hear it, Mr. Neang was unaware of these crimes. Neither did he have any knowledge of mistreatment of the Kampuchea Krom during the period 1975-1977.
Ta Mok had taught Neang Ouch that the Indo-China Federation meant a united Vietnam, Laos and Kampuchea. The French phrase was “Indochine Française”. Vietnam wanted to integrate the three countries into one. Mr. Neang could not recollect how Ta Mok said this was to be achieved.
The witness balked at outlining what DK officials said about the Vietnamese ambitions. He “dar(ed) not speak about this because lots of Vietnamese are living in Cambodia.” Mr. Neang, who had admitted signing orders to smash widows and babes in arms, had concerns about his personal safety vis-à-vis the Vietnamese because of his photograph, voice and personal particulars being exposed during this hearing at the ECCC. Mr. Koppe expressed surprise that he would be worried about ramifications of enlightening the court about a forty-year old policy.
Defence Counsel backed off the issue to ask his last questions. He wondered how long re-education could last and how many times it could be repeated. Neang Ouch estimated that “refashioning” could extend from two weeks to a month, usually for a half-day at a time. Where, as in a subject case which Mr. Koppe had mentioned, the woman was labelled “crazy,” re-education could continue beyond this point, but he had not come across anyone who had been re-educated several times. Mr. Neang confirmed that Kraing Ta Chan was a re-education office as its name denoted. Other than that interrogations were done there, he was unable to elaborate further about what about went on at Kraing Ta Chan. He denied reading any interrogation reports from the center. Execution of people without any interrogation, “was beyond (his) grasp of what went on there.” But, as Ni Chi’s theft and laziness were minor offences, he said she would have gone to Meng’s place for refashioning not Kraing Ta Chan.
Ms. Guiraud interrupted to voice her often-spoken complaint that she had not yet got the document to the defence counsel was using and asked for clarification on this issue again. She could review the late document quickly, but it was “a problem of principle. Parties need notification of at least a few minutes. Everyone should respect the rules.”
As the document was only two pages long, and there were no objections to the defence’s use of it, the President reminded counsel to upload his documents but said he could proceed. Before he did so, Mr. Koppe justified the late request on the grounds that the document had just come up in the second day of the Prosecutor’s examination. Judge Fenz contributed that the Bench had “acknowledged that this might happen and have established a procedure” for such instances.
Mr. Koppe wanted to know what “smash” meant in the context of “smash the revolution.” Mr. Neang replied: “to destroy.” Counsel read out another incidence of smashing, this time, of a plan to “smash cooperatives.” The witness translated that it meant “to destroy” in this instance, also.
The main purpose of education under DK was to teach reading and writing. This goal was following by teaching children “to love the revolution and Democratic Kampuchea;” to work hard to achieve progress in the villages, cooperatives and communes; to be moral, humble, gentle; and to build a good character. At Tram Kok, the curriculum included the alphabet, reading, some arithmetic and geography, but no foreign languages. English and Thai were taught in schools along the border (where Mr. Neang had fled in 1979). Most teachers in DK were women. They were trained and educated in psychology and teaching methods in training sessions held every one to three months. He asserted that teachers did their jobs as usual under the Khmer Rouge, and that they were not fearful. In 1995, Sam Bith assigned Neang Ouch to be in charge of education, youth and sport. On reintegration into the government, he was made Chief of the Department of Education, Youth and Sport until removed in 1999. Mr. Neang felt education post-1995 was better. The school day was longer (classes were in both the morning and afternoon); teaching “under the trees” was replaced by proper classrooms in real school buildings; and teachers got monthly training.
The President interrupted the cross-examination to announce to the parties that it was now necessary to deal with the request by the Co-Prosecutors to hear testimony of new witnesses. Mr. Koppe had clearly indicated his position after lunch but the Judge Nil Nonn called for the responses of the other parties.
Arthur Vercken, Khieu Samphan Defence Counsel, launched into a long discourse on his need for six weeks to read and analyze the disclosures before the witness is heard. They were served with 16 file folders at the time of the last trial management meeting (“TMM”), and received more documents on the following day. He reiterated that the practice adopted in the first trial that 1,500 statements were put on record in lieu of testimony, was grounds for appeal on the first judgment. The defence team understood the court “was not in a position to meter the flow of documents…,” but he got no further. It was almost 4:00 PM and Mr.Vercken had to face the wrath of Judge Nil Nonn who was very much able to meter his flow of words by cutting the counsel off short. In no uncertain words, he castigated the lawyer that the court had allotted time to speak on that issue in the TMM which he had chosen not to attend. He accused him of iterating submissions already made in the aforementioned meeting of last week and not dealing with the issue now of just the one witness, 2TCW948. A very self-assured President informed him that the Chamber “has been in consultation with the International Co-Investigating Judges for a relaxation of restrictions on documents but the disclosure conforms to the practice of other international tribunals.” With that, the President told him his time had expired and to “please sit down.” On Ms. Guiraud’s statement that she had no objection to the witness appearing, court adjourned.