Cadres Profess Blamelessness; Defence Fights for Court Visit to Crime Site
It was Day 4 of testimony for Neang Ouch (alias “San”), the cadre who claims he was never declared District Secretary of Tram Kok but functioned as a District Secretary nonetheless. He was followed towards mid-day by Nut Nouv, a former Khmer Rouge Group Leader, commune office worker and commune chief. Ta Nov claimed either not to have been around at the relevant instances or that he was ensconced in his office oblivious to the dramatic events happening outside his door. And later, by Victor Koppe who fought for adding a physical perspective to unidimensional evidence.
Arthur Vercken, Khieu Samphan Defence Counsel, was first to take the floor. He began his cross-examination with asking for clarification of the logistics involved in Mr. Neang’s obtaining Ta Ron’s orders. The witness confirmed it was approximately six kilometers from his house to Ta Ron’s and it would take him five to ten minutes to cover the distance. Whenever Mr. Neang received reports from the base, he would immediately attend at Ta Ron’s. Ta Ron would consider the matters for a few hours and then Mr. Neang would note the decisions. As decided by the “upper level,” the reporting structure of Tram Kok was different than most other districts. Because it was close to Sector, orders would come from Ta Ron who worked at the regional level. This was the case in Kandal, also, but in other districts, the decisions would be made by the District Committees.
Counsel was puzzled as to why the witness expressed the first person singular in the orders he penned without indicating that they came from Ta Ron. Neang Ouch did not know “the methodology” behind it but this was the way he was instructed to do it. In hindsight, he now thinks it was apparent to Ta Ron that there could be a later trial such as this one. Mr. Neang believed that Ta Ron had him do it so the witness would be the one in trouble as it was his handwriting and signature. He never issued orders personally but wrote down the words dictated by Ta Ron. People at the District level knew where the instructions came from because Mr. Neang always told them that he “had to go and see Ta Ron first.” This system lasted until the Vietnamese troops invaded Cambodia in late December, 1978. When the Vietnamese reached the outskirts of Takeo province (which was before the fall of Phnom Penh on January 6, 1979), Neang Ouch sought Ta Ton’s instructions as to where they were to flee. Ta Ron ordered them to withdraw for personal security reasons and to head for the Thai-Cambodia border.
Neang Ouch was never an assistant to Pich Chhim. In 1970, Khom, Ta Mok’s daughter, was District Secretary. He did not know which position Pich Chhim held at that time. After April 17, 1975, Pich Chhim was transferred to a rubber plantation in Kampong Cham province but the witness was not aware of what position he held there, either, or if Pich Chhim had ever headed a district anywhere.
Quoting Neang Ouch’s OCIJ statement in which he maintained deaths during the DK regime were limited to those killed fleeing the Youn, those who died fighting Lon Nol and the victims of the US bombing, Mr. Vercken asked what he had meant by the bodies of youths being excavated and reburied elsewhere. Sometime in 1999-2000, at the time of reinetegration with the government, Mr. Neang had come across burial sites of combatants. There were a lot of casualties from the Lon Nol war. Eventually, the graves were moved and the burial sites transformed for use as residences, health centers and hospitals. The exact numbers of the dead were not officially announced and there was conflicting information surrounding the issue. People would only know the numbers of graves in their immediate area. An unknown number of bodies disappeared. They may have been taken by relatives for religious ceremonies.
Mr. Neang did not want to respond to questions about the Vietnamese for his own “security and safety.” There are many Vietnamese where he lives in Pailin and also in Samlut. Even if the “Chamber grants an in camera, (he) would still be afraid of speaking in relation to this matter.”
Kong Sam Onn, Khieu Samphan National Defence Counsel, backtracked to the 1970’s and Neang Ouch’s role with “the Front.” Mr. Neang had been tasked with propaganda, specifically: to convince people to follow the Front. He described the mission of the United Front as “to struggle against Lon Nol and to bring (unintelligible? “justice” maybe?) back into the country.” Initially, there was the United Front of Kampuchea and later on he learned of the existence of the Communist Party of Kampuchea. The witness was not aware of what structural difference there might be between the two organizations. Because he fell sick for six months, he did not know when the Front ended.
Next, the counsel reviewed Neang Ouch’s duties “for several months” under Ta Khith and Ta Chhim coordinating with the unit chiefs the digging of canals, building of dykes, and doing farming. Discussions over the work plans “were held collectively and all were equal in rank.” He did not preside over the meetings, and the meetings would go ahead without his presence as his “presence was not necessary.” Sometimes, Ta Khith or Ta Chhim would instruct him to meet with the heads of the communes to arrange food supplies for the mobile units at the worksites.
Contact with the militia originated in the communes who would contact Neang Ouch, Ta Chhim or Ta Khith. Ta Chhim or Ta Khith would then give Neang Ouch reports to take to Ta Ron for decision making. Ta Chhim was old and lived 30 kilometers from Ta Ron so Mr. Neang would relay information to Ta Chhim also. And, the exculpation rider, Neang Ouch “received orders from Ta Ron on all matters.” The witness personally did not monitor implementation of decisions, but he did act as spokesperson for Ta Khith and Ta Chhim. The communes did not ask other communes for help directly. The protocol was that a commune would submit a request to Ta Khith or Ta Chimm. Mr. Neang never made decisions on this type of request. During the monthly joint district and commune meetings chaired by Ta Khith (or Ta Chhim in Ta Khith’s absence), the District Committee would decide and “advise the communes how to deal with economic matters by supplementation or use of plantations.” The witness had never chaired and of these meetings.
Ta Ron worked as Sector Chairman until the arrival of the Vietnamese. Brother Prak (spelling?) had preceded him for a month or two. There was no official announcement that Ta Ron was taking over but “communes were aware of the change because Ta Ron constantly came down on his motorbike.” Sam Bith was also in Sector concurrently with Ta Ron. As to Ta Mok’s “leadership style,” Ta Mok went to most of the worksites in the Zone. Mr. Neang considered Ta Mok to be “an open person.” If there was a request for equipment, if Ta Mok had it, he would supply it whether it was clothes, tools, a tractor to plough the rice fields or a threshing machine. The witness understood how Ta Mok made minor decisions on living conditions and worksites, but did not know anything about the major decisions on such matters as military issues and protection of the border. Mr. Neang translated the expression “on top of Ta Mok’s head there is a head; on top of the head there was a sky,” as meaning there was no one else above Ta Mok, only sky.
As this was the conclusion of Neang Ouch testimony, the President graciously thanked the witness and his duty counsel and excused them from the Trial Chamber.
Judge Fenz took the floor to ask for clarification of Victor Koppe’s request that all parties visit Kraing Ta Chan. After recognizing that “the request was reasoned in general terms probably because it was spontaneous,” that the other parties had no objections to the visit, and the existence of a Site Report, she requested that the defence make clear what additional information could be gained by visiting the site.
Nut Nouv was then ushered into the courtroom along with his duty counsel. The President qualified the 74-year-old from Tram Kok. He is a member of the commune committee and adjar for marriage ceremonies. He lives with his wife who was handicapped when hit by a car. They have nine children. Mr. Nut said he had given seven statements and that the reports reflected what he had told the various investigators. He had reviewed them to refresh his memory but had concerns that he would still forget some things. The witness had had an opportunity to consult with his duty counsel.
Mr. Koppe interrupted to ask for a verification of the exact number of statements Mr. Nut had made. The lawyer had only two. If he was missing five, there would be no point in continuing the examination of the witness as an adjournment would be necessary to chase down the missing
After a long discussion, it seemed that “seven” may have been a translation error. Three testaments were made on different occasions at Nut Nouv’s home to DC Cam investigators; one was made at Huo Hum’s house to a Korean investigator and another person also from the documentation center; and the last was given at the Tram Kok Commune Office with a Khmer Rouge Tribunal investigator, a foreigner and a translator present. Mr. Nut relinquished custody of the report he had with him of his final statement (the only interview record that he had) to the President. As best he could recall, there was a four-year period between the last interview and that at Huo Hum’s house. Mr. Koppe proposed that obtaining the DC-Cam statements be dealt with over lunch, that perhaps the Co-Prosecutors or investigators had them. Vincent de Wilde refuted that. The Co-Prosecutors also only had the two documents from the Co-Investigating Judges. They had no records of DC-Cam interviews. It was his opinion that the trial should move forward anyway. And it did.
National Deputy Co-Prosecutor Srea Rattanak began the examination of Nut Nouv who had been a farmer in Tram Kok at the start of the relevant period. In 1970, he was made a Khmer Rouge Group Leader in his village where he served until 1973. Mr. Nut distinguished between mutual assistance teams and cooperatives on the basis that the former ate privately whereas the latter ate communally. In 1974, the witness had contracted malaria and an abscess. On his recovery, he was transferred to Nheang Nhang commune where worked in the commune office. His daily duties consisted of procuring food supplies and forwarding them to the battlefields.
Mr. Nut first became aware that Phnom Penh had been evacuated when he saw massive numbers of people arriving. The communes made arrangements for them to live in various villages. He did not know how many “17th April people” there would have been in his commune but it would have been “in the thousands of individuals.” Initially, they were not required to write their biographies. They all mingled together, ate meals together. There were lists of “base people” and “new people” drawn up. At first, they did not know the new peoples’ background and no distinctions were made. Then there was “propaganda” announcing that people could go back to their former jobs but if they opposed the regime they were arrested and did not return. The survivors were told that such people had been sent for re-education. “To oppose” meant to oppose the general principles of the Khmer Rouge. As Nut Nov mainly stayed in the office, he did not encounter this but he had heard others talking about it.
At first, Mr. Nut thought the cooperatives were organized in late 1977 or early 1978 but then said the mutual assistant teams transformed to cooperatives in 1975 at the time of liberation. Realizing the confusion, he admitted he really was not certain when they were formed, but he did recall communal eating was instituted 1976. He did not remember when private ownership was abolished.
Division of people was done after Nut Nouv transferred to Srea Ronorng. The three categorizations were: “full rights people:” those who were loyal to Angkar, “proper people who would adhere to the revolution;” “candidate people:” were base people who were trusted but had had relatives living in enemy-controlled territory; and “depositees:” all city dwellers, some of whom were not trusted. The latter were referred to as “prisoners of war.” Mr. Nut was a base person but was categorized as a “candidate person” because his brother and nephew had been “taken away.” Because of a good work record, he was assigned as a commune chief in 1977 or 1978.
The three categories of people were sub-divided into units. Sometimes there were five or six units in a commune. Some units would be exclusively for “17th Avenue people” but the chief and deputy chiefs would still be “base people.” Houses would be built for the various units.
Food distribution from the district to the cooperatives was based on “the situation” as determined by the commune chiefs. The Districts gave them an overall package. The communes divided it according to the number of people in the units. Admittedly, there was a food shortage. People could not “eat their fill.” All categories of people would have the same food. They ate gruel but sometimes got cooked rice. Every tenth day, there would be a little pork mixed with the gruel. Mainly new people got ill. Nut Nouv attributed it to the town folk not being used to engaging in labor in the rice fields. When he became commune chief, he resolved a number of issues related to living conditions and sent the remainder of the sick to hospital. On Srae Ronorng commune, Mr. Nut never experienced the sort of exhaustion from overwork that the Co-Prosecutor described as having occurred in 1977 on the Nheang Nhang commune after he had left. A discrepancy between dates of the incident and his transfer to the second commune forced Mr. Nut to acknowledge that he had been at Nheang Nhang during the time of the incident which culminated in a report on (and subsequent arrest under the order of Ta Khieth of) Nu Pon (spelling?) a former soldier, for laziness and feigning illness. But Nut Nouv had not heard of any “pretenders.” When people were sick, he maintained they got treatment.
Having dealt with the issue of food, the President appropriately adjourned the court for lunch.
As the afternoon’s first order of business, Mr. Koppe enquired if there was any news in relation to both the missing DC-Cam statements and more documents coming from cases 003 and 004.
Mr. de Wilde cleared up that there were no statements from the current witness on file other than the two in the defence counsel’s possession. There were “none on the documents file, on site or the case file.” He suggested continuing on the basis of the documents taken before the OCIJ investigators as all parties were on an equal footing.
Co-Prosecutor Vincent de Wilde was able to pull out of the witness that he was called Ta Nov by the cadres at the commune. “Ta” meant “grandfather.” Nut Nouv denied that the signature or handwriting on a document presented to him by the counsel were his although he was the only Nov at his commune. He kept the records at the commune level “on economics: expenditures, consumption of food, amount of food supplies from the village, supplies used, and how much food went to the front lines.” Reports from the communes to the District were held by the District. Records received from “the upper level” were retained by the Chief of the commune. The Chief also kept all statistics such as the lists of “base people” and “17th April people” compiled by the commune clerk. (He was only in charge of economics). Boeun Sy (spelling?) was Nheang Nhang commune chief until 1977 when he was transferred to Kampong Cham province. Ta Son (name?) replaced him. Mr. Nuth had heard of Mean who was deputy of the commune after he left. Mr. Nut stayed at Nheang Nhang until 1977 or early 1978, when he was promoted to Chief of Srea Ronorng commune.
After Nut Nouv had moved to Srea Ronorng, an announcement was made that if Lon Nol soldiers, civil service officials and teachers divulged their prior occupations, they would be allowed to return to work. Once the declarations were made, “some remained; some disappeared.” If they concealed their backgrounds and “posed no danger,” they were not mistreated. If they opposed the revolution, they were sent for re-education. Mr. Nut was not aware of Lon Nol soldiers and government workers having to sign any lists or that thousands who did had been “decimated” according to another witness who had worked in the Tram Kok District Commerce Office. At the time, he mostly remained in his office, some ten kilometers from the pagoda where the victims had been gathered. The witness protested that only knew about people who came into his commune.
Mr. Nut translated “those opposed to the regime” as meaning “those who did not agree with or like the revolution or reacting (negatively) to what the organization said.” Most people participated in the cooperative actively with only a few daring to voice opposition of the living conditions and communal eating arrangements. Even he feared to express any opposition.
On the second try, Nut Nouv was able to identify a name on an evidentiary document as belonging to a commune chief whom Mr. de Wilde read in had testified that commune chiefs were responsible for establishing the biographies that would then be sent to “the upper level.”
But Mr. Nut insisted that that would have been the commune clerk’s job and that he never took down any biographies. Contradicting his prior statement, he now said that he had heard of Lon Nol adherents, policemen and teachers being arrested and sent to “the upper level” but he did not witness it. When Mr. Nut was at Nheang Nhang, he did not have a high enough status to attend District meetings where discussions on purging cadres were held. In 1978, as commune chief at Srea Ronorng, he attended District and Sector monthly meetings but only Sector and Zones could authorize arrest and smashing. After 30 years, Mr. Nut could not remember any discussions of purging at the meetings he attended. He had spoken at the meetings on agricultural production (specifically the goal of three tons of rice a hectare and that if a leader could not achieve this, he would be removed).
Ta Soam was chief of Sector until replaced by Ta Prak who was subsequently arrested. Ta Ron was chief after Ta Prak, but he never attended meetings and Mr. Nut never met him elsewhere. Ta Tith replaced Ta Ron followed by Ta Khith succeeding Ta Tith.
Ta Soam chaired both of the annual general assemblies of Sector 13 which he attended in 1977 and 1978. Neither Ta Ron nor Ta Prak was at either assembly. Ta Ron was hit by a train on his way to Phnom Penh for an assembly.
Nut Nouv asserted that the four instances of arrests and purges of Lon Nol officers at Nheang Nhang in April, 1977, that the Co-Prosecutor cited must have occurred after he had left the commune. When another discrepancy in dates was pointed out to the witness, he revised that during that particular period he was in charge “of economics.” The commune chief would have done the round up without informing the office.
“To sweep clean” meant to purge those disloyal to the party even if that person was a commune or committee chief. Mr. Nut claimed he “was very concerned” so he worked hard on rice production. He knew that in some places “people in ranks were arrested one after another with no one returning.” For example, Ta Khun was removed and he never saw him again. The witness had not known a pharmacist named Toan Tean but had heard of a Tean.
When Mr. de Wilde asked if only the slightest amount of criticism was sufficient for arrest and execution, Victor Koppe objected on the basis of it being speculative and leading, that “the question should be based on the facts.” Mr. de Wilde rebutted that it was based on what the witness had said about people being executed for little criticism. The objection was overruled.
Mr. Nut was not aware of details of the cited arrests as he was not in Nheang Nhang when they occurred and the decisions would have been made by chiefs at Sector or Zone. Communes did not have the authority. They would only make a report and send it to District. “In practice, ‘the upper level’ would send those people that had been gathered for re-education.”He added that “purging mainly focused on those opposed to the regime and were considered the enemy.”
Nut Nouv had heard of Ta An but the commune committee did not go to where Ta An worked.
The District Security wrote letters to the commune militia who would affect the arrests. Security referred to Sector (translation inaccuracy?) and they would liaise with the militia at the commune level.
The Co-Prosecutor showed the witness two reports. In one, Ta An accused “Mime” (spelling?) of complaining that “Doing the revolution is difficult, working all day and night, eating gruel;” that she “couldn’t bear it.” In the other, Sim (who became chief of Nheang Nhang after Nut Nouv had left), denounced a woman for criticising the regime for lack of food. Mr. Nut could not comment as he not aware of these two letters having left the commune before they were written. Nut Nouv said he never wrote security reports. Instead, complainers were called into a criticism session “so they could understand collective interests.” A report on attempted escapees would be sent to District, though. Indeed, and Mr. de Wilde presented three concerning Srae Ronorng to the witness to review. The counsel then asked Mr. Nut what the specific instructions were on what to do with people who tried to escape because of the living and working conditions. Kong Sam Onn objected to the question on the inaccurate basis that the Co-Prosecutor had represented that the witness had written the reports. He was overruled, but Mr. de Wilde still did not get his answer. Mr. Nut evaded, stating that he “was not aware” of the two documents, foregoing addressing any “specific instructions” he would have received. A follow up query as to whether any instructions about those who tried to flee were given at meetings of the commune chiefs only elicited more information about workers being told “to strive in the fields.” On the third try, Mr. Nut finally said that meetings were not about escapees so he was not aware of any such discussions. “Someone at (his) office” wrote monthly reports on economic matters, security and social work, none of which he defined further.
Judge Nil Nonn interrupted the proceedings to inform all parties that the witness was excused until Monday, March 16, 2015. The President then called on Mr. Koppe present to the court his reasoning for the request he had made to Judge Fenz for a site visit to Kraing Ta Chan. The Chamber needed a basis to make a decision on the matter.
Victor Koppe was not sure there was much more that he could add to his spontaneous application. He and “his team had found it extremely helpful in understanding all sorts of issues” to actually be able to see the site. He contended that “you would not buy a house based on a map and photos. The difference is day to night.” For example, it would be obvious that it would be physically impossible to bury 15,000 corpses of the people allegedly executed at Kraing Ta Chan in the number of pits that are there. Further, it would become clear that it is simply not credible for the guards to say they “did not see anything.” Mr. Koppe advocated that there are other issues that the Chamber should investigate at the site: (a) would the number of skulls in a stupa give an indication of the number of people executed at Kraing Ta Chan; and (b) was Kraing Ta Chan an old gravesite?
Vincent de Wilde begged to differ seeing nothing to be gained from such a visit. He argued that the Site Identification Report is comprehensive with GPS data, photographs giving “a clear idea,” and a map. As none of the old buildings (particularly citing the interrogation room) are left, he pled that there was no point in wasting a day going to Kraing Ta Chan. He brought to the attention of the court that his opposing counsel already knew that some bodies had been buried outside the prison’s first fence and that the parties, “in principle, could understand the distances.”
Civil Party International Lead Co-Lawyer, Marie Guiraud also contested the application. She asserted that it was belated and coming during a trial which followed several years of investigations. In order to establish justification for the visit, she avouched there “would have to be introduction of a new element not available during the investigation.” The counsel felt that the trip would be an inconvenience for all parties and “contrary to manifestation of the truth.”
Defence Counsel Arthur Vercken was brief: the Khieu Samphan team “always favoured a site visit even if only to clarify the controversy surrounding the mass graves.”
The President reserved on the issue of the visit, the Chamber’s decision to be made in due course. Judge Nil Noon also announced that the Bench would make a decision in the next week on the application for a six-week adjournment to read the material flowing from Cases 003 and 004. The judges needed time to deliberate as more documents have now been disclosed. Court adjourned until Monday, March 16, 2015.