“Adored” Commune Chief Claims Never Around for the Dirty Work

It was 98 F at the ECCC today which did not add to the comfort level of Nut Nouv, a former commune chief who was having difficulties with his story. He was repeatedly tripped up by evidentiary documents to the contrary over his excuse that incriminating things that happened at Srae Ronorng commune occurred before he was commune chief. Then he would testify that, during commission of the offences, he must have been away on worksites because he did not know much about anything going on in his commune whilst he headed it.

 

Co-Prosecutor Vincent De Wilde picked up his examination from Friday with asking Mr. Nut to explain a seeming contradiction in the witness’s claiming not to have been a Communist Party of Kampuchea member and then admitting that he was. Nut Nouv clarified that when was chief of Srae Ronorng commune he had been on the Commune Committee but only a “candidate” member of the CPK. Ta Khith was Chairman of the District and Ta San a member of the District Committee at this time. They appointed him to replace Khun as chief of the commune.

Ta San had told him “Ta Khun had committed cruelty and disobeyed the instruction of the committee so was sent to Angkar Borei.”

 

Nut Nouv confirmed that arrests and purges were matters handled by “the upper echelon.” The commune level did not have the authority to arrest and execute, only Sector and Zone did. Sector and Zone officials did not come directly to the commune but would send their security personnel to carry out these tasks. The witness claimed that, in his commune, there were no such arrests, but that he had been “busy engaging with people growing rice on worksites.” He had heard the name Ta An but had never received any messages from him and was not allowed to go near the security office. Mr. Nut was not aware if other communes got letters from Ta An ordering people be sent to him or to the District to take further action, but he had not received any.

 

Counsel asked how, at Srae Ronorng, he had managed to grow his quota of three tonnes of rice per hectare plus another three tons which in his OCIJ statement he said he had secretly stockpiled for when it would be scarce. Mr. Nut said they could not produce six tonnes but rather only 2.5 to 3 tonnes per hectare. Of this, it was his “personal undertaking” to keep some rice warehoused for the commune to fulfill his responsibility to have rice for when there were food shortages. He gave as an example that, if 1000 bags of rice were produced, he would report only 700 bags and hold back 300 bags for communal use. Nut Nouv explained his OCIJ comments that he was “not denounced by people” and that they “adored” him, because he did such things as have cassava bread scrambled with egg made for every worker each morning before they went to labor in the rice fields.

 

The Co-Prosecutor turned to cross-referencing Mr. Nut’s statements with documents from Kraing Ta Chan. The first report (dated August, 1978), was about two “despicable” prisoners arrested at Srae Ronorng whose crime had been attempting to flee because they had insufficient food. Nut Nouv’s excuse was that he had heard some people were sent away before he arrived at the commune, but emphasized that he was not there then. Likewise, the witness knew nothing of a third individual (also taken in 1978), who had complained about insufficient food and the quality of the bread being reminiscent of “burned cake.” Mr. Nut could only comment that he could “not make conclusions on their likes and dislikes,” and that this had occurred not at the commune but on a worksite that was under the supervision of the District Office. (The workers came from different communes). The decision for arrest would have been made at the District level, and he did not know anything about it because the worksite was far from his commune. Mr. De Wilde then read in from a Kraing Ta Chan document that purported that six people from Srae Ronorng (amongst them a teacher, a banker from Phnom Penh and some Lon Nol corporals), were eliminated, but the witness was ignorant of these incidences as well.

 

Nuon Chea Defence Counsel, Victor Koope objected to the use of the word “eliminated,’ and suggested that “allegedly eliminated” would be more appropriate as exactly what a cross in a column meant was not known and it was not known “for sure” that this was even a Kraing Ta Chan document. Mr. de Wilde countered that other witnesses had identified the documents as being from Kraing Ta Chan, and that he was only using the word “éliminé” as translated from the Khmer. Mr. Koppe stated that the word “eliminated” did not appear in the English translation, and that the use or non-use of the word comprised a major discrepancy. Advising that he was mindful of running out of time, the Co-Prosecutor requested that, although the English may not be “a full rendering,” that “here and now” was not the place to discuss it. As he had simply wanted to establish that they were arrested and taken to Kraing Ta Chan, he could come back to “eliminated.” And somewhat later, Mr. Koppe did. He was disturbed that since the French translation has the date March, 1978, as well as the word “éliminé” and the English does not, that the “difference in potentially crucial documents (means) we might have a problem.” Judge Nil Nonn clarified that the date of March, 1978, and the Khmer word for “smash” (which means the same thing as eliminated) were used in the original document. Not happy, Mr. Koppe noted that “that still does not explain why the date is not mentioned or why the English translator couldn’t translate that word,” (i.e. “smash.”) The President decided that, to save time, the Chamber would ask ITU to clarify the translations and then the Chamber would communicate the answer in due course.

 

Again, Mr. Nut protested that, as after his “arrival, no one was arrested and sent to Kraing Ta Chan,” this must have predated him. But Mr. de Wilde was emphatic that, as the witness himself had testified that he was transferred to Srae Ronorng in late 1977 or early 1978, this must have happened at the time he was head of the commune.

 

Nut Nouv admitted that lists of Vietnamese and Kampuchea Krom had been prepared under Ta Khun and kept in the commune office, but that the records were “just a census of villagers in the commune.” None were done after his arrival, and he does not know what happened to those people on the lists.

 

Civil Party Lawyer Lor Chunthy had some concerns about how many times biographies were taken. As Nut Nouv was in the Economics section and dealt mainly with supplies for the battlefield, he did not know. He was aware, though, that there had been meetings between each village head and the commune chief, but he was not involved with making the biographies. The plan to purge “enemies from within or without the party ranks” who had committed “wrongdoing” came from the Sector, and was passed down through the District to the lower levels. The commune chief or the clerk at the commune office produced reports (based on information received from the villages), and sent them to the District. Nut Nouv spent most of his time out at worksites so the commune clerk would have acted for him in this matter.

 

Young children in the commune were put to work gathering and storing cow dung. In the afternoon, they would study the alphabet for one to two hours and then cut trees leaves or collect more dung. Their school was under a house or a big tree, and their teachers were not properly trained.

 

Each commune had five to six medics. When the medical treatment was inadequate, the ill were sent to hospital. “Medication was in small supply.” They had mainly traditional herbal medicine, some serums (undefined as to the nature of these), and few modern medicines. The witness felt that some patients had died due to lack of medicine.

 

After the morning break, Judge Lavernge had some identification questions. Nut Nouv never heard Ta San called Ta Ouch, only Ta San. Only one ‘Ta San’ had been District Chief. The witness denied he had said in his OCIJ interview that Ta San was on the commune; Ta San was Chief of Tram Kok District. When challenged, he corrected the jurist, insisting that it was San Pon (spelling?) who was his assistant at Srae Ronorng. He knew Duch well. Duch had been the first chief of Tram Kok Youth. He was later at Kraing Ta Chan and then, on his final posting, had been sent to the North Zone. Duch died three or four years ago “from drinking too much.” The witness did not know where Ta Chen (spelling?), a former cadre at Kus commune, was now. He had never heard Ta Chen was at Kraing Ta Chan but knew that Phy was there before Phy was sent to be chief at, he thought, Rokar.

 

Nut Nouv related that he had requested food and clothing supplements be sent from the District when necessary. The District would send some supplies (cloth and rice), but they were not sufficient to meet the needs at the time. That is why he had hidden rice from the harvest, to ensure there would be sufficient food.

 

Mr. Nut could not remember the year that Ta Soam disappeared. Ta Soam was replaced by Ta Prak (spelling?), then Ta Ron, Ta Tith and, lastly, Ta Khith until the Vietnamese liberation. The witness had been informed of the disappearance of Ta Soam and two other commune chiefs at a District 106 meeting. He only learned at the ECCC that the officials had been “sent for study sessions.” Nut Nouv could not remember the specific year that Ta Ron replaced Ta Prak or if Ta Soam and Chu Chet had any connections. He had heard of Ta Si but did not know if there was a relationship between Ta Si and Ta Soam. Nut Nouv had known Ta Khith well as they were from the same village. Ta Khith was secretary of Tram Kok in 1970. After 1975, he was sent to Angkar Borei, then to Soeng Long Mountain (spelling?) and, later, to an area south of Phnom Penh. Ta Khith disappeared after the Vietnamese came. The witness did not know if Ta Si and Chu Chet were the same person, or if Ta Si was arrested as “during the regime, everything was secret.” After 1979, he heard that some cadres (Ta Soam, Ta Prak and Ta Khith), were smashed by Pol Pot, but he does not know why or if they were in Ta Si’s network. They just disappeared. He had heard that Ta Khith was never seen again after being taken away with his wife and two younger children.

 

In 1979, Nut Nouv was arrested by the Vietnamese and “refashioned” at Office 163 for six years. After his release, he was made a Deputy Village Chief and then, because of his work experience during the Khmer Rouge years, a commune chief. Later, he was elected member of the Tram Kok District Committee.

 

The witness does not know what happened to Phy as he was in a different commune and district. In particular, Mr. Nut had not heard if he was executed by the Vietnamese. He did not know what role Phy played at Kraing Ta Chan or whether he was possibly the superior of Ta An but only that he was on the commune committee of District 107. Nor could he remember the details of Phy’s accident.

 

After 1975, the communes were called to collect rice aid and only rice. Mr. Nut could not remember any clothing or medications but, if there were, these types of aid would not have been frequent. Mr. Nut thought the aid “was likely from China,” but he was not sure. The aid was insufficient but it kept coming. Each village would get about ten sacks of rice but he did not know the exact amount of aid in total or recall the period when the Economic section would pick it up. The shipments continued until 1976 when each commune produced rice. The food supply was not sufficient as the rice yield was not adequate. Then, he would request surplus from other communes. They would eat gruel in the morning and cooked rice in the afternoon. Nut Nouv said it “was difficult” to say whether there had ever been sufficient food during 1975-1979, but that “from time to time resolved the food supply.” Eventually, from raising livestock, they had cows and pigs so there would be pork or beef every ten days. They supplemented rice with chicken and fish. The “upper echelon” issued instruction to solve the issue of the food supply, putting the leaders under personal threat of being in trouble if they did not do so. Mr. Nut confirmed that he had made a statement to the OCIJ that, during 1975-1976, people fell sick from the shortage of food, but acknowledged that they also died of disease and age.

 

Nut Nouv had been called for a study session where he was given materials to implement on how to increase rice production. Others who were sent for re-education never returned but, as he alluded to the OCIJ, this was a “secret story.” After he was promoted to commune chief in 1978, he never sent people for re-education. He surmised that those who had been sent and not returned had been executed. Only after 1979, when he visited Kraing Ta Chan, did he learn to his “shock” about what had happened. He “felt angry about what they did.” His younger sister and his son had disappeared.

 

Arrests were made very quietly. The militiamen took people away at night because they did not want people to know of the arrests. Mr. Nouv was not aware of any distinction made between minor crimes and serious crimes. As he was in the office dealing with economics, he never witnessed or heard of stealing. Nor had he heard of people being sent for re-education multiple times just that when they were sent, they disappeared.

 

Nut Nouv was told by travellers he met on the road near his village that it had been announced when they were evacuated from Phnom Penh that they should return to their “individual birth districts.” But, he did not know the percentage which actually made it back to their old homes.

At first, there was no discrimination against the evacuees. Everyone ate and worked together. In late 1976, “distinctions were imposed,” and people were put in different groups to live. In 1978, it was declared that “people were to be treated equally,” and the distinction between “base people” and “17^th April people” was abolished. Mr. Nut had no statistics on how many inhabitants there were at Nheang Nhang commune while he was there.

 

Khieu Samphan Defence Counsel, Kong Sam Onn sought definition of job descriptions. Nut Nouv said the commune committee members were the supervisors and administrators while the office cadres supplied food for the people. The commune chief would decide on the food supply. Mr. Nut said there was himself, two messengers and a clerk in the office. The messengers would gather the food and vegetables from the villages; the clerk would do the registry; the witness was not part of the commune committee at Nheang Nhang but was in charge of the economics: i.e. supplying the food. Boeun Si was head of the commune committee; Soan was his deputy; Tian and Ta Chhoen were members; Yoen was the clerk (spelling for all names?). Mr. Nouv refuted three times that he had anything to do with the military on the commune stating that Ta Chhoen (spelling?) was in charge of the soldiers.

 

Ta Hoen (spelling?) was Chief of Leay Baur commune in 1976 when Nut Nuov was there.

The Chief of Leay Baur had responsibility for “all affairs”, the deputy was in charge of economics; and a member was in charge of culture. As a Commune Committee member, Mr. Nouv advised each unit on how to teach children to read and write although there was no formal schooling. The teachers did not have formal training but, simply, “knew more than those they taught.” Teachers had textbooks at that time, and would issue progress reports. The witness said that some learned to read the alphabet but that “their knowledge was rather limited.”

 

Nut Nouv could remember two of the principles of the Communist Party of Kampuchea: to organize the people at the base and to organize affairs inside the party. The latter, he explained, implies that one must be loyal to the CPK and “to strictly follow the line of the CPK.” Basically, they had to strive to deal with the living conditions of the people and produce sufficient food. At Srae Ronorng, he did this by compartmentalizing responsibility under various units. There was a growing vegetables unit, a livestock unit raised pigs and cows, the Economics section caught fish, et cetera. But, Mr. Nut estimated they were about 30% short of having sufficient food. He blamed it on Ta Khun not having increased the level of food supply as well as he had, denigrating his predecessor for only managing to add vegetables to the soup.

 

There was a severe shortage of food at Leay Baur (which had been a former battlefield), so they tried different crops. At Srae Ronorng he was able “to resolve the living conditions,” so people liked him for distributing food to the people. Nut Nouv was at Leay Baur from mid-1976 to late 1977. In May, 1978, he transferred to Srae Ronorng and, two months before the fall of the regime, to Ang Tasoam.

 

Whilst at Leay Baur, Mr. Nut remembers the visit by a Chinese delegation under the charge of Ta San. Those were the only visitors he could recall. He never saw Pol Pot or Khieu Samphan. Ta San had referred to Ieng Sary but he did not know the leader to recognize him. Mr. Kong quotes from other witness’s testimony that Ta Nov was “cruel…strict,” and that he was in charge of the military. Nut Nouv asserted that Soan (spelling?) was responsible for the military. The personal aspersions he dismissed as “some of us were liked; some were afraid of us.” Because he spoke loudly at the meetings, he believed some people were afraid of him. Mr. Nut averred that he never punished or reprimanded the workers but just had encouraged them to work hard. He knew from the villagers, that arrests had occurred at night when Ta Khun was head of the commune. He was also noted that one or two people had disappeared when he worked on the canals on a worksite under the purview of the District that was far away from Srae Ronorng.

 

Nut Nuov contrasted his “kind and gentle supervision” with the “absolute” style of some other chiefs. Orders came from Center to the Zone to Sector to the districts, but some communes did not always follow the orders. Orders included supervising the commune “to strive to deal with food supplies; to produce a good yield; and to increase the population.” If they did not deal with these matters, the commune committee members were accused of laxity. “Everyone had a different style. Some were absolute with CPK principles; what some did was in excess of policy.” Unfortunately, this interesting comment was not explored by the Defence Counsel.

 

The witness had worked with Ta Tith (name?), Ta Chhim, Ta Khith and Ta San at the District level. Ta Chhim and Ta San “were rather strict, more specific on administrative issues, but, besides that, were friendly and outgoing.” The Defence Counsel queried if he was given any “inappropriate policies” to implement but the witness declined to answer on the basis that he was not an expert and could not make such an assessment.

 

Arther Vercken, Khieu Samphan Defence Counsel, got right to the point on the party line. Nut Nouv defined for him that to be “absolute” meant to carry out full instructions as imposed by “the upper echelon.” The witness concurred that the party line of increasing the population and nourishing it “was a good thing.” Mr. Nut did not know why he had been chosen by the Khmer Rouge to be a group leader back at the beginning of his career but surmised, since he had not been politically active, that it might have had something to do with him being able to read and write. He agreed with Counsel that the Mutual Assistance Groups may have been “the ancestors” of the cooperatives as their duty was to distribute food although everyone ate privately.Units were divided according to strengths. There were “full-strength, half-strength and weaker- strength units.” The strong units got more rice than the lesser-strength units even if there were more members in the latter groups. As a result, a strong unit with weak family members would not get sufficient food for the whole family. Because the war was ongoing, there was no solution to this.

 

The President interrupted the cross-examination to say that the questions appeared to be outside the scope of the trial. Mr. Vercken proved their relevance opining that the cooperatives may have been designed to solve the problem of inequality in food distribution. But Nut Nouv could not back this up as he “did not have a deep understanding of it.” There was “equal status” in the common eating halls, “an equal chance to join the communal eating.” There were differing views on the success of this arrangement. Some felt they had more food with private eating; those with more family members preferred the common eating. Cadres ate in the same cooperative as the regular workers but, on rare occasions during meetings, cadres would get surplus food.

 

Mr. Nut did not know who sent the letters ordering arrests but possibly it was the District Chief or Security. The commune militia reported the arrests to the commune with a copy to Tram Kok District Security.

 

The witness had never heard of a black market or bartering in food under the DK in any of the three communes with which he had experience. He was able to hide his rice surplus because the amount that the District and Sector would fetch would be based on the inaccurate rice yield reports he had sent them.

 

In reply to miscellany: Nut Nouv was not familiar with the Revolutionary Flag, the journal of the Khmer Rouge; the secretaries of the communes who wrote reports operated in an autonomous fashion, checking their own work for accuracy.

 

As the cross-examination drew to a close, Judge Nil Nonn thanked the witness for his “valuable time for two and one-half days” of testimony, and dismissed him. With only fifteen minutes of the sitting remaining, the President directed that the reserve witness be ushered into the court.

The jurist wasted none of his remaining time in running through the basic qualifications of Riel San.

 

Riel San was born January 30, 1938, in Srae Ronorng Commune, Takeo province, where the retiree still lives. He and his wife have five children. During the material period of 1975-1979,

Mr. Riel worked in the fields for the first three months. Then he became a repairman in District 105, and, after one year, a medic in the hospital in ‘105’. He was chief of that institution until 1979. The President zipped through establishing the witness has no conflicts, that he had taken an oath, and determining that he had reviewed the two statements he had made before the OCIJ for accuracy and consistency. Judge Nil Nonn then informed Mr. Riel of his rights and obligations in the Trial Chamber–and adjourned court crack on the dot of 4:00 P.M. It was a lesson in efficiency that could be of benefit to many of the lawyers.

It was 98 F at the ECCC today which did not add to the comfort level of Nut Nouv, a former commune chief who was having difficulties with his story. He was repeatedly tripped up by evidentiary documents to the contrary over his excuse that incriminating things that happened at Srae Ronorng commune occurred before he was commune chief. Then he would testify that, during commission of the offences, he must have been away on worksites because he did not know much about anything going on in his commune whilst he headed it.

 

Co-Prosecutor Vincent De Wilde picked up his examination from Friday with asking Mr. Nut to explain a seeming contradiction in the witness’s claiming not to have been a Communist Party of Kampuchea member and then admitting that he was. Nut Nouv clarified that when was chief of Srae Ronorng commune he had been on the Commune Committee but only a “candidate” member of the CPK. Ta Khith was Chairman of the District and Ta San a member of the District Committee at this time. They appointed him to replace Khun as chief of the commune.

Ta San had told him “Ta Khun had committed cruelty and disobeyed the instruction of the committee so was sent to Angkar Borei.”

 

Nut Nouv confirmed that arrests and purges were matters handled by “the upper echelon.” The commune level did not have the authority to arrest and execute, only Sector and Zone did. Sector and Zone officials did not come directly to the commune but would send their security personnel to carry out these tasks. The witness claimed that, in his commune, there were no such arrests, but that he had been “busy engaging with people growing rice on worksites.” He had heard the name Ta An but had never received any messages from him and was not allowed to go near the security office. Mr. Nut was not aware if other communes got letters from Ta An ordering people be sent to him or to the District to take further action, but he had not received any.

 

Counsel asked how, at Srae Ronorng, he had managed to grow his quota of three tonnes of rice per hectare plus another three tons which in his OCIJ statement he said he had secretly stockpiled for when it would be scarce. Mr. Nut said they could not produce six tonnes but rather only 2.5 to 3 tonnes per hectare. Of this, it was his “personal undertaking” to keep some rice warehoused for the commune to fulfill his responsibility to have rice for when there were food shortages. He gave as an example that, if 1000 bags of rice were produced, he would report only 700 bags and hold back 300 bags for communal use. Nut Nouv explained his OCIJ comments that he was “not denounced by people” and that they “adored” him, because he did such things as have cassava bread scrambled with egg made for every worker each morning before they went to labor in the rice fields.

 

The Co-Prosecutor turned to cross-referencing Mr. Nut’s statements with documents from Kraing Ta Chan. The first report (dated August, 1978), was about two “despicable” prisoners arrested at Srae Ronorng whose crime had been attempting to flee because they had insufficient food. Nut Nouv’s excuse was that he had heard some people were sent away before he arrived at the commune, but emphasized that he was not there then. Likewise, the witness knew nothing of a third individual (also taken in 1978), who had complained about insufficient food and the quality of the bread being reminiscent of “burned cake.” Mr. Nut could only comment that he could “not make conclusions on their likes and dislikes,” and that this had occurred not at the commune but on a worksite that was under the supervision of the District Office. (The workers came from different communes). The decision for arrest would have been made at the District level, and he did not know anything about it because the worksite was far from his commune. Mr. De Wilde then read in from a Kraing Ta Chan document that purported that six people from Srae Ronorng (amongst them a teacher, a banker from Phnom Penh and some Lon Nol corporals), were eliminated, but the witness was ignorant of these incidences as well.

 

Nuon Chea Defence Counsel, Victor Koope objected to the use of the word “eliminated,’ and suggested that “allegedly eliminated” would be more appropriate as exactly what a cross in a column meant was not known and it was not known “for sure” that this was even a Kraing Ta Chan document. Mr. de Wilde countered that other witnesses had identified the documents as being from Kraing Ta Chan, and that he was only using the word “éliminé” as translated from the Khmer. Mr. Koppe stated that the word “eliminated” did not appear in the English translation, and that the use or non-use of the word comprised a major discrepancy. Advising that he was mindful of running out of time, the Co-Prosecutor requested that, although the English may not be “a full rendering,” that “here and now” was not the place to discuss it. As he had simply wanted to establish that they were arrested and taken to Kraing Ta Chan, he could come back to “eliminated.” And somewhat later, Mr. Koppe did. He was disturbed that since the French translation has the date March, 1978, as well as the word “éliminé” and the English does not, that the “difference in potentially crucial documents (means) we might have a problem.” Judge Nil Nonn clarified that the date of March, 1978, and the Khmer word for “smash” (which means the same thing as eliminated) were used in the original document. Not happy, Mr. Koppe noted that “that still does not explain why the date is not mentioned or why the English translator couldn’t translate that word,” (i.e. “smash.”) The President decided that, to save time, the Chamber would ask ITU to clarify the translations and then the Chamber would communicate the answer in due course.

 

Again, Mr. Nut protested that, as after his “arrival, no one was arrested and sent to Kraing Ta Chan,” this must have predated him. But Mr. de Wilde was emphatic that, as the witness himself had testified that he was transferred to Srae Ronorng in late 1977 or early 1978, this must have happened at the time he was head of the commune.

 

Nut Nouv admitted that lists of Vietnamese and Kampuchea Krom had been prepared under Ta Khun and kept in the commune office, but that the records were “just a census of villagers in the commune.” None were done after his arrival, and he does not know what happened to those people on the lists.

 

Civil Party Lawyer Lor Chunthy had some concerns about how many times biographies were taken. As Nut Nouv was in the Economics section and dealt mainly with supplies for the battlefield, he did not know. He was aware, though, that there had been meetings between each village head and the commune chief, but he was not involved with making the biographies. The plan to purge “enemies from within or without the party ranks” who had committed “wrongdoing” came from the Sector, and was passed down through the District to the lower levels. The commune chief or the clerk at the commune office produced reports (based on information received from the villages), and sent them to the District. Nut Nouv spent most of his time out at worksites so the commune clerk would have acted for him in this matter.

 

Young children in the commune were put to work gathering and storing cow dung. In the afternoon, they would study the alphabet for one to two hours and then cut trees leaves or collect more dung. Their school was under a house or a big tree, and their teachers were not properly trained.

 

Each commune had five to six medics. When the medical treatment was inadequate, the ill were sent to hospital. “Medication was in small supply.” They had mainly traditional herbal medicine, some serums (undefined as to the nature of these), and few modern medicines. The witness felt that some patients had died due to lack of medicine.

 

After the morning break, Judge Lavernge had some identification questions. Nut Nouv never heard Ta San called Ta Ouch, only Ta San. Only one ‘Ta San’ had been District Chief. The witness denied he had said in his OCIJ interview that Ta San was on the commune; Ta San was Chief of Tram Kok District. When challenged, he corrected the jurist, insisting that it was San Pon (spelling?) who was his assistant at Srae Ronorng. He knew Duch well. Duch had been the first chief of Tram Kok Youth. He was later at Kraing Ta Chan and then, on his final posting, had been sent to the North Zone. Duch died three or four years ago “from drinking too much.” The witness did not know where Ta Chen (spelling?), a former cadre at Kus commune, was now. He had never heard Ta Chen was at Kraing Ta Chan but knew that Phy was there before Phy was sent to be chief at, he thought, Rokar.

 

Nut Nouv related that he had requested food and clothing supplements be sent from the District when necessary. The District would send some supplies (cloth and rice), but they were not sufficient to meet the needs at the time. That is why he had hidden rice from the harvest, to ensure there would be sufficient food.

 

Mr. Nut could not remember the year that Ta Soam disappeared. Ta Soam was replaced by Ta Prak (spelling?), then Ta Ron, Ta Tith and, lastly, Ta Khith until the Vietnamese liberation. The witness had been informed of the disappearance of Ta Soam and two other commune chiefs at a District 106 meeting. He only learned at the ECCC that the officials had been “sent for study sessions.” Nut Nouv could not remember the specific year that Ta Ron replaced Ta Prak or if Ta Soam and Chu Chet had any connections. He had heard of Ta Si but did not know if there was a relationship between Ta Si and Ta Soam. Nut Nouv had known Ta Khith well as they were from the same village. Ta Khith was secretary of Tram Kok in 1970. After 1975, he was sent to Angkar Borei, then to Soeng Long Mountain (spelling?) and, later, to an area south of Phnom Penh. Ta Khith disappeared after the Vietnamese came. The witness did not know if Ta Si and Chu Chet were the same person, or if Ta Si was arrested as “during the regime, everything was secret.” After 1979, he heard that some cadres (Ta Soam, Ta Prak and Ta Khith), were smashed by Pol Pot, but he does not know why or if they were in Ta Si’s network. They just disappeared. He had heard that Ta Khith was never seen again after being taken away with his wife and two younger children.

 

In 1979, Nut Nouv was arrested by the Vietnamese and “refashioned” at Office 163 for six years. After his release, he was made a Deputy Village Chief and then, because of his work experience during the Khmer Rouge years, a commune chief. Later, he was elected member of the Tram Kok District Committee.

 

The witness does not know what happened to Phy as he was in a different commune and district. In particular, Mr. Nut had not heard if he was executed by the Vietnamese. He did not know what role Phy played at Kraing Ta Chan or whether he was possibly the superior of Ta An but only that he was on the commune committee of District 107. Nor could he remember the details of Phy’s accident.

 

After 1975, the communes were called to collect rice aid and only rice. Mr. Nut could not remember any clothing or medications but, if there were, these types of aid would not have been frequent. Mr. Nut thought the aid “was likely from China,” but he was not sure. The aid was insufficient but it kept coming. Each village would get about ten sacks of rice but he did not know the exact amount of aid in total or recall the period when the Economic section would pick it up. The shipments continued until 1976 when each commune produced rice. The food supply was not sufficient as the rice yield was not adequate. Then, he would request surplus from other communes. They would eat gruel in the morning and cooked rice in the afternoon. Nut Nouv said it “was difficult” to say whether there had ever been sufficient food during 1975-1979, but that “from time to time resolved the food supply.” Eventually, from raising livestock, they had cows and pigs so there would be pork or beef every ten days. They supplemented rice with chicken and fish. The “upper echelon” issued instruction to solve the issue of the food supply, putting the leaders under personal threat of being in trouble if they did not do so. Mr. Nut confirmed that he had made a statement to the OCIJ that, during 1975-1976, people fell sick from the shortage of food, but acknowledged that they also died of disease and age.

 

Nut Nouv had been called for a study session where he was given materials to implement on how to increase rice production. Others who were sent for re-education never returned but, as he alluded to the OCIJ, this was a “secret story.” After he was promoted to commune chief in 1978, he never sent people for re-education. He surmised that those who had been sent and not returned had been executed. Only after 1979, when he visited Kraing Ta Chan, did he learn to his “shock” about what had happened. He “felt angry about what they did.” His younger sister and his son had disappeared.

 

Arrests were made very quietly. The militiamen took people away at night because they did not want people to know of the arrests. Mr. Nouv was not aware of any distinction made between minor crimes and serious crimes. As he was in the office dealing with economics, he never witnessed or heard of stealing. Nor had he heard of people being sent for re-education multiple times just that when they were sent, they disappeared.

 

Nut Nouv was told by travellers he met on the road near his village that it had been announced when they were evacuated from Phnom Penh that they should return to their “individual birth districts.” But, he did not know the percentage which actually made it back to their old homes.

At first, there was no discrimination against the evacuees. Everyone ate and worked together. In late 1976, “distinctions were imposed,” and people were put in different groups to live. In 1978, it was declared that “people were to be treated equally,” and the distinction between “base people” and “17^th April people” was abolished. Mr. Nut had no statistics on how many inhabitants there were at Nheang Nhang commune while he was there.

 

Khieu Samphan Defence Counsel, Kong Sam Onn sought definition of job descriptions. Nut Nouv said the commune committee members were the supervisors and administrators while the office cadres supplied food for the people. The commune chief would decide on the food supply. Mr. Nut said there was himself, two messengers and a clerk in the office. The messengers would gather the food and vegetables from the villages; the clerk would do the registry; the witness was not part of the commune committee at Nheang Nhang but was in charge of the economics: i.e. supplying the food. Boeun Si was head of the commune committee; Soan was his deputy; Tian and Ta Chhoen were members; Yoen was the clerk (spelling for all names?). Mr. Nouv refuted three times that he had anything to do with the military on the commune stating that Ta Chhoen (spelling?) was in charge of the soldiers.

 

Ta Hoen (spelling?) was Chief of Leay Baur commune in 1976 when Nut Nuov was there.

The Chief of Leay Baur had responsibility for “all affairs”, the deputy was in charge of economics; and a member was in charge of culture. As a Commune Committee member, Mr. Nouv advised each unit on how to teach children to read and write although there was no formal schooling. The teachers did not have formal training but, simply, “knew more than those they taught.” Teachers had textbooks at that time, and would issue progress reports. The witness said that some learned to read the alphabet but that “their knowledge was rather limited.”

 

Nut Nouv could remember two of the principles of the Communist Party of Kampuchea: to organize the people at the base and to organize affairs inside the party. The latter, he explained, implies that one must be loyal to the CPK and “to strictly follow the line of the CPK.” Basically, they had to strive to deal with the living conditions of the people and produce sufficient food. At Srae Ronorng, he did this by compartmentalizing responsibility under various units. There was a growing vegetables unit, a livestock unit raised pigs and cows, the Economics section caught fish, et cetera. But, Mr. Nut estimated they were about 30% short of having sufficient food. He blamed it on Ta Khun not having increased the level of food supply as well as he had, denigrating his predecessor for only managing to add vegetables to the soup.

 

There was a severe shortage of food at Leay Baur (which had been a former battlefield), so they tried different crops. At Srae Ronorng he was able “to resolve the living conditions,” so people liked him for distributing food to the people. Nut Nouv was at Leay Baur from mid-1976 to late 1977. In May, 1978, he transferred to Srae Ronorng and, two months before the fall of the regime, to Ang Tasoam.

 

Whilst at Leay Baur, Mr. Nut remembers the visit by a Chinese delegation under the charge of Ta San. Those were the only visitors he could recall. He never saw Pol Pot or Khieu Samphan. Ta San had referred to Ieng Sary but he did not know the leader to recognize him. Mr. Kong quotes from other witness’s testimony that Ta Nov was “cruel…strict,” and that he was in charge of the military. Nut Nouv asserted that Soan (spelling?) was responsible for the military. The personal aspersions he dismissed as “some of us were liked; some were afraid of us.” Because he spoke loudly at the meetings, he believed some people were afraid of him. Mr. Nut averred that he never punished or reprimanded the workers but just had encouraged them to work hard. He knew from the villagers, that arrests had occurred at night when Ta Khun was head of the commune. He was also noted that one or two people had disappeared when he worked on the canals on a worksite under the purview of the District that was far away from Srae Ronorng.

 

Nut Nuov contrasted his “kind and gentle supervision” with the “absolute” style of some other chiefs. Orders came from Center to the Zone to Sector to the districts, but some communes did not always follow the orders. Orders included supervising the commune “to strive to deal with food supplies; to produce a good yield; and to increase the population.” If they did not deal with these matters, the commune committee members were accused of laxity. “Everyone had a different style. Some were absolute with CPK principles; what some did was in excess of policy.” Unfortunately, this interesting comment was not explored by the Defence Counsel.

 

The witness had worked with Ta Tith (name?), Ta Chhim, Ta Khith and Ta San at the District level. Ta Chhim and Ta San “were rather strict, more specific on administrative issues, but, besides that, were friendly and outgoing.” The Defence Counsel queried if he was given any “inappropriate policies” to implement but the witness declined to answer on the basis that he was not an expert and could not make such an assessment.

 

Arther Vercken, Khieu Samphan Defence Counsel, got right to the point on the party line. Nut Nouv defined for him that to be “absolute” meant to carry out full instructions as imposed by “the upper echelon.” The witness concurred that the party line of increasing the population and nourishing it “was a good thing.” Mr. Nut did not know why he had been chosen by the Khmer Rouge to be a group leader back at the beginning of his career but surmised, since he had not been politically active, that it might have had something to do with him being able to read and write. He agreed with Counsel that the Mutual Assistance Groups may have been “the ancestors” of the cooperatives as their duty was to distribute food although everyone ate privately.Units were divided according to strengths. There were “full-strength, half-strength and weaker- strength units.” The strong units got more rice than the lesser-strength units even if there were more members in the latter groups. As a result, a strong unit with weak family members would not get sufficient food for the whole family. Because the war was ongoing, there was no solution to this.

 

The President interrupted the cross-examination to say that the questions appeared to be outside the scope of the trial. Mr. Vercken proved their relevance opining that the cooperatives may have been designed to solve the problem of inequality in food distribution. But Nut Nouv could not back this up as he “did not have a deep understanding of it.” There was “equal status” in the common eating halls, “an equal chance to join the communal eating.” There were differing views on the success of this arrangement. Some felt they had more food with private eating; those with more family members preferred the common eating. Cadres ate in the same cooperative as the regular workers but, on rare occasions during meetings, cadres would get surplus food.

 

Mr. Nut did not know who sent the letters ordering arrests but possibly it was the District Chief or Security. The commune militia reported the arrests to the commune with a copy to Tram Kok District Security.

 

The witness had never heard of a black market or bartering in food under the DK in any of the three communes with which he had experience. He was able to hide his rice surplus because the amount that the District and Sector would fetch would be based on the inaccurate rice yield reports he had sent them.

 

In reply to miscellany: Nut Nouv was not familiar with the Revolutionary Flag, the journal of the Khmer Rouge; the secretaries of the communes who wrote reports operated in an autonomous fashion, checking their own work for accuracy.

 

As the cross-examination drew to a close, Judge Nil Nonn thanked the witness for his “valuable time for two and one-half days” of testimony, and dismissed him. With only fifteen minutes of the sitting remaining, the President directed that the reserve witness be ushered into the court.

The jurist wasted none of his remaining time in running through the basic qualifications of Riel San.

 

Riel San was born January 30, 1938, in Srae Ronorng Commune, Takeo province, where the retiree still lives. He and his wife have five children. During the material period of 1975-1979,

Mr. Riel worked in the fields for the first three months. Then he became a repairman in District 105, and, after one year, a medic in the hospital in ‘105’. He was chief of that institution until 1979. The President zipped through establishing the witness has no conflicts, that he had taken an oath, and determining that he had reviewed the two statements he had made before the OCIJ for accuracy and consistency. Judge Nil Nonn then informed Mr. Riel of his rights and obligations in the Trial Chamber–and adjourned court crack on the dot of 4:00 P.M. It was a lesson in efficiency that could be of benefit to many of the lawyers.