Alleged “Cruelest” Guard Testfies as Civil Party Victim
Hearings resumed at the ECCC after a four-day break with a new civil party witness, 2TCP304.
Further to the witness’s request for protective measures, Judge Nil Nonn ordered that his voice and video image be distorted. Also, his personal background information and address are to be kept confidential. But, for unclear reasons, the President then sanctioned the use of Saut Saing’s name.
Kong Sam Onn, Co-Defense Attorney for Khieu Samphan, then requested that the partition screening Saut Saing from the courtroom be lowered to enable the Bench to observe the witness’s responses. (Ed. Note: Being able to study a witness’s demeanor can be important in evaluating credibility).
Civil Party Co-Lawyer Kim Mengkhy opened the examination with inquiries about where the witness was, and what was he doing, pre-1975. In 1971, Saut Saing was still living with his parents. By 1972 or 1973, he had been conscripted into the army, and given the duties of carrying dirt and digging canals. In 1975-1976, his unit was assigned to the Damrei Romiel mountain area to capture Ta Prum San. The witness did not know anything more about Ta Prun San until, after 1975, when the ostensible “traitor” became chief of Tram Kok commune. (He later died in the commune). In 1975, Mr. Saut had his firearm stolen, and was accused of giving it to Prum San’s clique. His defense was that he had been sick with malaria and resting in a trench when members of a patrol took his weapon. He was “re-educated for a whole afternoon,” and “strongly advised not to betray the army.” His unit commander told him “to sacrifice self and defend the party to make it more prosperous.” After his “re-education,” Saut Saing professed to “follow(ing) the advice of the party.” In 1976, “for no clear reason,” he was transferred to Kraing Ta Chan. At the beginning of the posting, he did not serve at the prison compound but was put in a Youth Unit at a local pagoda where he worked transplanting rice. To counsel’s question of whether he was considered staff or prisoner during the rice planting period, the Mr. Saut replied ambiguously that he “was accompanied by a combatant from the pagoda to Kraing Ta Chan.” He remained at the security center until 1978, when he was transferred back to Division 210, a tactical unit organized to fight the Vietnamese.
While the Saut Saing was at Kraing Ta Chan, he was on the security detail. He had had “to commit” that if one prisoner escaped, his own “life would end.” Ta An, Ta Penh and Ta Cheng were the leaders of the prison during his period in residence. Moeun and Choeun were among the serving cadres, but he could not recall the names of the others. Mr. Saut did not make note of the number of prisoners. He did remember that after the victims arrived at the security office they were taken to a house and shacked. He acknowledged that they were interrogated and tortured by such methods as beatings and having plastic bags tied around their eyes. He was “not aware of any other types of torture” having been used. The numbers of prisoners admitted daily varied: sometimes none; sometimes only two to three. Some were babies and children brought in with their parents with whom they remained during incarceration. They came from the mobile units or cooperatives to the security center.
Mr. Saut did not think that many of the prisoners survived their stay at Kraing Ta Chan. They were not allowed to clean themselves and no medicines were provided when required. Food rations were always inadequate with only watery gruel occasionally supplemented with cassava or potatoes. Although the witness did not see any rapes of female prisoners inside the security center, he knew from talking to some of the male prisoners that they were there for “moral offences,” i.e. having committed rapes on women outside of the center.
International Co-Prosecutor Dale Lysak wanted to know why a former guard at the notorious security center had applied to be a civil party in this action. Saut Saing claimed he was also a victim: His father, siblings and other relatives had all died in the DK era. Mr. Lysak read in from Say Sen’s prior testimony that this witness had told Say Sen to tell the Tribunal that both of the men had been prisoners at Kraing Ta Chan. Mr. Saut firmly denied that Say Sen and he had ever discussed the issue of the ECCC hearings, but he did admit to attending Say Sen’s child’s wedding. He stated very clearly that he had “no worries” about appearing before the court, and would “testify as to what (he) experienced.”
In 1973, when Ang Tasoam was liberated by the Khmer Rouge, witness was not engaged in the fighting, but had been assigned to carry wounded from the battlefield. He had no knowledge about what happened to the residents once liberated.
Suon Visal, Nuon Chea Defence Counsel, objected to the Co-Prosecutor questioning Saut Saing about his father’s arrest as a spy in 1971, arguing that such facts were outside the remit of the court. Mr. Lysak rejoined that the incident related to establishing the policies of the Khmer Rouge. The President overruled stating that the topic was related to facts being debated.
The Saut Saing’s father had held no position, but was faithful to his Buddhist religion. He was an “achar” in the village and had gone for “disciplines” at the pagoda. (Ed. Note: An “achar” is a “ritualist,” and will act, among other capacities, as master of ceremonies at the temple and at weddings.) It was bad timing. When a monk was found with binoculars, the militia arrested all present, and took them to Office 204. (The witness did not know where Office 204 was as he has never been there, and he did not know who had been chief of that facility). Before his father died in 1973, Mr. Saut had asked him what went on at the security office the two years he was detained there, and was rebuffed with there was “no need to for (him) know, just do what Angkar assigned (him) to do.”
After the morning break, Suon Visal made an interesting observation. Since the witness himself had testified that he was not concerned about his security or safety, why had the Chamber granted him protective measures? Judge Nil Nonn directed the counsel to give reasons for his request that the protective measures be lifted. Mr. Visal justified his application on the basis that the witness had said they were, in effect, unnecessary. The President ignored this statement, and overruled him, perversely finding that “no reasons were submitted for the request,” that the Chamber has discussed the protective measures with WESU and that “the Chamber has ruled.” Further, Mr. Suon was “not allowed to raise the matter again.”
With some skilful prodding of his memory, Saut Saing was able to confirm that Sim,Van Soeun and Srei Tan (also known as: Little Duch or Serat) had all started at the same time at Kraing Ta Chan in the guard unit. He and Van Soeun are cousins (his mother and Soeun’ father are siblings), who met at the prison. Before that, they had been in the same army division but different units. The witness confirmed that he had been made head of the prison guards because of his Grandfather Ta Chen’s friendship with Ta An. (Ta Chen was not a real relative. In 1971 or 1972, due to the fighting, his family had been evacuated from their village, and ended up living with Ta Chen). The prison guards carried M21’s and CKE’s.
Self-criticism or “life view” meetings were held in the dining hall. Both combatant cadres and people from the units participated. The assemblies were not held often: perhaps once a month; sometimes none in a month. On the agenda was Ta An telling the guards that if any prisoners escaped, they would be killed.
There was a bell outside of the outer (second) fence of the compound that was rung when new prisoners arrived at the entrance of the security center. Saut Saing did not know the backgrounds of the prisoners, but they were brought from communes and villages all over the district. Some were arrested for having connections to officials of previous administrations (which included that of Lon Nol and relatives of former Lon Nol people) up to the time that the “revolutionary regime” took over. The witness also translated that if someone was accused of “betraying the revolution” and sent for re-education, it meant that they would be “smashed.” Any arrests of Lon Nol soldiers would have occurred before he arrived at Kraing Ta Chan. When Mr. Saut was a soldier at the front, he did not know what was going on at the rear.
Saut Saing remembered the medics Ouch Han and Vorn Saroun (a.k.a. Roun) being at the security center. Victor Koppe, Nuon Chea Defence Counsel, objected to the witness being asked if there were more “17th April people” than “base people” imprisoned on the grounds that it was leading. He also noted that, since the witness could not read, he had no means to determine what classification they were. Mr. Lysak disagreed. He felt it was not leading, that there are other ways than reading to get the information, and that “it was a proper question for him to answer.” After a Bench consultation, the objection was overruled, but the witness had no idea who the Lon Nol soldiers, “base people” or “17th Avenue people were.” Mr. Lysak moved on to review the evidence of three other guards from Mr. Saut’s unit who had testified to considerably more than two to three prisoners being admitted on most days. Mr. Saut was unable to say if there were “fewer or more” than his prior estimate as he did not count the prisoners and, in any event, he had spent time away from the security center finding food or fishing. He was able to confirm that there were three prisoner buildings, two to the east and one to the west, but added that not all the buildings were full. Nor could he say what the maximum capacity of the buildings was just that there were two rows of prisoners with a footpath between.
When the Co-Prosecutor asked for permission to display an occupancy report from November, 1977, Mr. Koppe contested for “what reason as the witness cannot read?”Mr. Lysak retorted that “this is a public proceeding: for the Bench and the public.” The document listed that 75 people had entered the security center in the month; 92 were purged; 6 died of illness and 1 Lieutenant Colonel was moved to Sector. Citing the fog of memory after some 30 years, the witness could not recollect whether these figures would have been typical for a month. But, he was not aware of anyone being sent to sector level. There was no medical treatment for the ill, but he could not say how often someone died from sickness.
After lunch, the Co-Prosecutor sought clarification on Ta An’s village. The witness thought he was from Kabal Oh village but that might have been Ta An’s wife’s home.
The interrogation center was to the south of the compound, the other side of the cassava plantation and next to a high hill. The Saut Saing had actually witnessed beatings and plastic bags being used to extract confessions, but had seen only whips not bamboo clubs in use. There were three interrogators: An, Penh and Cheng. At first he said he was not “close enough to see if they took notes.” When Mr. Lysak referenced that this was inconsistent with the witness’s own OCIJ transcript, he reversed and said notes were taken.
As the witness “liv(ed) without any information at all,” Saut Saing had no information on whether Tram Kok had received recognition as a model (“advanced”) district. And, as he was often off collecting food or fishing, Mr. Saut did not know how often messengers delivered Kraing Ta Chan letters to the District Office. There was only one messenger until Suon, a guard, was given the post.
When there were to be executions, there would be meetings in the guards’ kitchen hall assigning duties. Each soldier in the witness’s unit had an appointed spot on the perimeter outside the compound to guard.
Although “most likely he would be overruled,” Mr. Koppe rose with a scathing objection. He complained that the Co-Prosecutor’s technique of “feeding information from another witness and then asking for confirmation” was “all so leading.” The lawyer expressed that it was “unbearable to witness…and not the way to do it.” Mr. Lysak came back with “everyone presents testimony and asks for a reaction. Counsel does exactly the same.” It was not a pretty pass. The Defence Counsel responded that, “we should start with open questions. If (that is) a problem, then a witness should be confronted. This is the other way around.” It was a passionate plea which won over the Bench who ruled the objection “appropriate. Open questions first.”
Saut Saing had not seen any loudspeakers, but could pin point that the burial pits were south of the execution site. Only security office staff was assigned to dig pits and bury bodies. It was not related to his work; he did not work inside the compound. The staff to whom he had referred would come from the three-member committee, the youth league, the party or the core group. This conflicts with the testimony of Sim whom Mr. Saut has already identified as a soldier in his unit who swore that his unit covered the grave pits. The only answer Mr. Saing had to that was that Sim worked inside the compound whereas he did not.
Saut Saing, on occasion, would “get a glimpse” of prisoners being killed with hoes and bamboo clubs. He claimed that, sometimes during the executions, he was not on guard duty but had gone fishing. It was his “personal observation” that, when the parents were killed, the children disappeared, too, so he assumed they also had been executed. Mr. Koppe termed it, “extremely leading…very, very, very leading,” when Mr. Lysak sought to find out whether the guards had been ordered by Ta An on the order of the District Chief to kill the children. The Co-Prosecutor protested that the question was based on “a piece of evidence (a letter) admitted by the author of it,” and that his was an obvious question based on the letter. In her wonderfully succinct way, Judge Fenz delivered the ruling that the “objection rejected.” A foundation had been laid and the Co-Prosecutor had knowledge of the execution of children. Therefore, the confrontation was suitable in this situation. As so often after these technical dramas, the witness was not able to be of any help. He was not aware of the Chief receiving instructions from the District Chief or whether guards received orders from the prison chief.
The Co-Prosecutor pounced and challenged Saut Saing that Say Sen had testified that he was directly involved in the execution of two children. Mr. Saut rejected this, discrediting Mr. Say’s accusation with the implausibility of it as there were no palm trees from which Mr. Say could have seen what went on. He dismissed the allegation with, “Whatever Say Sen said was his business.” But, Mr. Saut finally had to admit that, though there may not have been any palm trees on the compound itself, there were some at a distance. He said that palm juice was made by villagers both north and south of the compound. (Say Sen had said he was up a palm tree collecting the ingredients for the drink when he viewed the executions).
Judge Fenz asked Mr. Saut Saing if he had ever heard loud music or announcements, “no matter where it was coming from,” during his time at Kraing Ta Chan. He reiterated that there were no loud speakers on the premises, but revealed that there had been a tape player. He had listened to revolutionary songs about peasants and the building of dams and canals. The tape player was kept over near the Chief’s building or sometimes under a tree. There was only one tape player at the security center. The music would broadcast 30-40 meters from it, a distance that could conceivably put it within the range of the detained prisoners.
The judge also wanted to clarify whether Mr. Saut had ever heard about rape or sexual assault of any kind at Kraing Ta Chan. She had a hard time nailing down the witness’s answer. He finally confirmed no one had ever told him about any such incident inside the prison, and he had never learned of any center staff accused of moral misconduct. He opined that such conduct would have been considered “not with Angkar,” and the person would have disappeared.
Interrogations varied. Sometimes they were held in the morning; sometimes in the afternoon; not necessarily on a daily basis. Saut Saing could not remember how long the longest interrogation he saw was. The witness heard screaming during the torture sessions.
During the relevant 1975-1979 period, Mr. Saing had not seen Khieu Samphan and Nuon Chea but he had heard their names mentioned.
Judge Lavergne wanted elaboration about the witness’s experiences at the Koh Trabek Dam. Mr. Saut could not remember the year he was posted to the dam along with 10,000 other workers from districts all over the province. He was assigned to a group digging soil foundations for a bridge—one foundation every three days, “in miserable living conditions.” No one on his unit died from starvation while he was there. He remembered hearing the American bombardment. When the bombers would come, they would all scurry and hide in the jungle. He does not recall how long he was on the worksite, but was transferred to the battlefield before the dam’s inauguration.
Saut Saing’s “re-education” lesson he incurred for losing his rifle had consisted of an interrogation with “many, many questions.” He was accused of “betraying the revolution,” and threatened that he had “to be faithful to the party or (he) would be shot to death.” He had to obey his commanders, and “couldn’t disobey any order at all.” Then they assigned him to the Youth Unit to do rice planting. Before he had been in the military, Mr. Saut had been a monk (age 15). When he left the pagoda, the commander ordered him to join a unit and arrest Prum San. At Kraing Ta Chan, all of his orders dealt with guarding outside the compound; none were to do with executing prisoners.
Saut Saing had no idea of how many victims there had been at Kraing Ta Chan, but he was sure they were dead. Mr. Saut averred it was a serious trauma for him on top of losing his father and relatives. It was “beyond belief that Khmer could kill Cambodians.”
Only members of the Youth League of the Communist Party of Kampuchea were made chief so the witness was never chief of his guard unit. (This contradicts his testimony earlier in the day that Ta An had made him chief because of his friendship with Ta Chen). Now he put forward that, as there were only six in his unit, no one was chief.
In 1978, Saut Saing could not bring to mind any visits by Khmer Rouge leaders, but “Rous” and “Khorn” would visit the center. Ta Phy he had met a long time before he was at Kraing Ta Chan. He did not see Ta Phy at the prison. The witness knew Dam had once been staff at the center. Then he had committed a moral misconduct and been sent away. But when he did it again, Dam was sent back to Kraing Ta Chan as a prisoner. Mr. Saing never actually fought the Vietnamese. His unit fled to the Thai border, and then he went on to his home village.
And then it was Mr. Koppe’s cross-examination. Saut Saing knew Yeay Ngor at Kraing Ta Chan. Her husband was arrested first. He was accused of being a traitor for saying “thunder without rain.” Later, the mother, a married daughter (Surat), the daughter’s husband and two sons, were picked up (probably in 1977), after he was already at the security center. Mr. Saut did not witness Yeay Ngor’s interrogation and surmised that he may not even have been there that day. But, he would see Yeay Ngor working in the kitchen cooking rice and cleaning the guards’ dishes. They were in different units, but would chit chat almost every day because they worked together carrying earth mounds or dirt from the ponds to the rice fields to use as a natural fertilizer. It was just “casual” conversation. They did not speak of any “serious policies…nothing detrimental to Angkar.” Yeay Ngor and Surat had the “same casual…normal relationship” with the other guards. If the guards had a coconut to share, they would share it with Surat and Yeay Ngor. Initially, Mr. Saut said he had not met with Yeay Ngor or her children since 1979, but latterly remembered that Sokar, the younger daughter, had visited him on one occasion. The family now lives in a village in Srei Kral.
Similarly, Saut Saing could bring to mind Han who was under him at a worksite. He averred that he never “inflict(ed) ill treatment against” the medic. He did not know Vorn or Set Yen. Likewise, he had had just “simple chit chat” with Han. He knew of no difficulty that Han had had with the guards. Mr. Saut was in charge of supervising the prisoners let out to work. When the daily tasks were completed, he would take them back to detention. Mr. Saut was not aware that actors, Kim Nova and Nok Nem, had been at Kraing Ta Chan or of what happened to them, but he used to watch their movies.
The mysterious tape player was the center of attention with Mr. Koppe, too. Mr. Saut said it was a “National” brand about 50 cm. long. He used to play revolutionary songs for his leisure, not for any special purpose at the time. It was only used for music, not as a voice amplifier, and there were no cables running from it to any loudspeakers
At 3:45P.M., the Court went into closed session. Mr. Koppe had requested an in camera in order to protect the privacy of a potential sexual assault victim whilst the counsel explored claims of rape of female prisoners by staff at Kraing Ta Chan.