Defence Accuses Civil Parties of ‘Sneaking’ in More Evidence
Civil Party witness Ung Saroeun was called to the Chamber on a request by the Civil Parties in order to provide supplement information concerning the visit of Khmer Rouge leaders to a worksite. It was a controversial examination contributing minimally to the facts of the case.
Ung Saroeun, 60, is a rice farmer. She lives on Leay Baur commune in Takeo province. Prior to April 17th, 1975, she lived with her husband, a former Lon Nol soldier, and their one child, a son. She would sell rice cakes in the local market. From 1975-1979, worked in the rice fields as well as on the work sites. That she is illiterate has some bearing on her testimony.
Marie Guiraud, Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer had the honor of starting the examination. After the 1975 liberation, Ung Saroeun was evacuated with other ‘17th Avenue people,’ first to a pagoda, then to several villages and, finally, to Leay Baur commune. There she was put into a “concentration unit.” In 1977, she was assigned to a mobile unit tasked with carrying dirt at a dam site and, at night, carrying cement to be stored at a railway station.
Life was harsh and it could be short. In 1976, she was separated from her family. Her husband was put in a different unit and she has not seen him since. Her son, a one-year old at the time, was placed with “an old female unit,” and died as a result of measles. In 1977, a friend had stolen some food, was arrested and “disappeared.” In 1978, she was sent to build canals and “was forced to work very hard there.” In 1979, she was able to flea when the Vietnamese troops liberated Cambodia.
‘Base people’ made up the first unit in the commune; ‘17th April people’ were in the second and third units. They worked separately in assigned units and groups. Her mobile unit was young so was tasked with carrying earth. There were twelve in her group and many groups in the concentration unit.
One day in 1977 (she could not remember the month),Yuon, her unit chief, told her they would have to work hard as Angkar was coming. Ung Saroeun was only about five or six meters from the Khmer Rouge leaders during the visit, but she did not recognize any of them except for Ta San and Ta Mok. After they left, Yuon identified the other three men as Khieu Samphan, Nuon Chea and Pol Pot. Ms. Ung had only heard of Khieu Samphan and Pol Pot. Her uncle had once read her a newspaper article about Khieu Samphan. She had not heard of Nuon Chea before the occasion of the inspection trip.
In 1976, Ung Saroeun would receive one can of rice for two people to share per day. After she was transferred to the unit, she was given only gruel. By 1977, there was even less to eat.
Suffering from hunger, Ms. Ung stole cassava and maize. She was caught and, as it was her first offence, she was sent for “re-education.” But she was warned that she “would be in danger,” if she did it again. After that, she only stole food in small amounts, wrapping it in her skirt. ‘Base people’ had enough food whilst ‘17th April people’ only had gruel.
There were three commune chiefs: Ta Nouv, Ta Kith and Ta Hon. Ms. Saroeun called Ta Nouv “a hatchetman.” He had beaten her uncle, breaking his teeth. But the uncle survived and is still living at age 92.
Oi Mutt (spelling?), Ung Saroeun’s husband, because he had been a Lon Nol soldier, was detained and executed at Kraing Ta Chan. Chhim, who had come from her birth village, had told her, after 1979, what had happened to her spouse. (Chhim had moved to Battambang because he “didn’t dare live in his home province.” He is dead now).
At this point, Victor Koppe, Nuon Chea defence counsel, raised an objection to the relevancy of the questions. He wanted it noted that, one-half hour into the session, there had been only “literally two minutes dedicated to the reason” why the witness was asked to appear: her ability to potentially identify the high-ranking visitors. The counsel accused his colleague of “sneaking in new evidence.”
Ms. Guiraud defended her process stating that she had submitted the additional testimony with her application. The parties needed to hear Ung Saroeun’s “information in order for the defence to react to her evidence.” She argued that the court had not restricted the scope of the questioning for the witness, that there had been no instruction from the Chamber on the kinds of questions to be asked. The Civil Party counsel did not believe the examination should be limited to the visit of the four leaders.
The President explained that the Chamber “decided to call the civil party to focus on the presence of the four individuals.” He “rejected the objection,” ruling that all parties were allowed to question witnesses on relevant facts.
Ms. Guiraud backtracked to ask Ung Saroeun why she had applied to become a civil party.
Ms. Ung had lost her father, husband and siblings along with “a lot of property” during the Khmer Rouge regime. The witness had included on her application that she had suffered psychological harm and was “very forgetful.” She elaborated on this saying that she “has trouble breathing and sleeping well,” when she thinks about those years. But, she felt her “memory was good at the moment.” She had obtained some medicine at TPO that has helped her to sleep better so she can now recall past events.
Deputy Co-Prosecutor Srea Rattanak had only a few queries concerning living conditions. Ms. Ung related that she could not complain about food or she would have been killed. Further, if someone asked for more food, it would have been “a problem for all of us.” So, they cooked stems of banana and papaya trees to eat. A child of 15 stole a fish after complaining of insufficient food. He was taken away and killed. Others in the youth unit stole cassava and sugar cane. Some of them returned but some were also killed. She had witnessed some of them being taken away.
When Ung Saroeun had fallen sick, the chief of economics deprived her of rice. He accused her of “psychological disease.” Actually, she had malaria, and was admitted to Hospital 12 in Leay Baur commune. Her treatment consisted of IV injections of coconut juice and medicines made from cassava. Other workers fell sick from a variety of illnesses. Some died; some recovered. A man by the name of Ta Touk who had a leg problem was also treated with traditional medicines.
Co-Prosecutor Vincent de Wilde explored the issue of the evacuees at the pagoda. Ung Saroeun testified that there had been “hundreds of thousands of people from Takeo town at that pagoda.”
The cadre had gone around taking notes about everyone’s prior work experience. They said that the evacuees would be sent back to do the same jobs. Ms. Ung had fallen “for the trick” and registered her name. Her uncle (“a secret agent”), teachers, soldiers and police, were all taken away on the pretext they would be sent back to their previous offices. They disappeared. Her elder brother was in the economic section. He asked for more food. As a ’17 April person,’ he was sent for re-education and disappeared. When Ms. Ung visited Kraing Ta Chan she found the names of her brother, father and uncles on admission reports written by the soldiers who took them to the security center.
Ung Saroeun was familiar with the K1 model cooperative. It was a unit for ‘base people’ located south of where she lived at Leay Baur. “It had no connection with ‘17th April people’ so was considered good.” It was also known as “a unit of the Great Leap Forward.”
When Mr. de Wilde raised the name of Chou Koemlan, Mr. Koppe interrupted to denounce the Prosecutors for not being interested in the visit of the leaders either. He advised that this was the last time the defence would accede to Civil Party witnesses appearing before the Chamber. Kong Sam Onn, Khieu Samphan Defence Counsel, objected to giving the name of Ms. Chou to the witness. He claimed it was leading as Ms. Ung had not mentioned her. Mr. de Wilde responded that it “was not up to the Defence to approve of (their) questions.” He added that he was relying on documents that he had received. Further, Ms. Koemlan’s name was “not controversial.” The President quickly denied both objections on the basis the court needed to hear the answer.
Ung Saroeun knew Chou Koemlan, but the women had been in different groups.
Ms. Saroen also knew Ta Nouv, the commune chief, of whom she was afraid. She characterized him as “looking mean.” Anta Guissé (Khieu Samphan Defence Counsel) objected to this line of questioning on the grounds that it was repetitive and controversial. The witness had said earlier that she had “nothing more to say” about Ta Nouv’s conduct.
After the morning break, Judge Fenz sought clarification of the chronology of the leaders’ visit. Ung Saroeun detailed that she was told that Angkar was coming before the visitors arrived and the names of the dignitaries just after they had left, when she and her unit chief were still at the worksite. This identification still did not do her much good as she could not “put a face to the name.” The group of leaders was five to six meters to the right of her on the National Road. She was looking up at them from the worksite. It was “just for a brief moment” as she was carrying dirt on her shoulders. Ms. Ung frequently had seen Ta San and Ta Mok but did not think she could identify them today. The witness knew Ta Mok because he lived in a house on the water towards the east, and she would see him frequently driving on the road. And he would come to the worksite to inspect them.
Judge Lavergne had an excerpt of video played (five times). Ms. Ung identified two different men as Ta San and said she could pick out no one else.
The witness could not tell Mr. Koppe how the chief of her unit had known who the visitors were. She confirmed that the men were about as far from her as Mr. Koppe then was. Ms. Ung could not pick out Ta Mok from a series of ten black and white photographs. She explained she could not recognize anyone as they all had caps on their heads.
Empathetically, Mr. Koppe approached the issue of the death of her child from measles. Quite a few young children had died, seven or eight.
Ung Saroeun knew the ‘base people’ had enough to eat because the villagers had told her so. From her personal experience of sharing a pot of gruel, she concluded that ‘the 17th April people’ did not. At the beginning, before classification, they had eaten communally. Then ‘the17th April people’ ate separately from the other groups. But ‘the base people’ were allowed to go into the kitchen to ask for more from the ‘base people’ there. ‘The 17th April people’ were not allowed in the kitchen because they were afraid that they would put poison in the food. There were two meals a day: lunch and dinner. ‘The 17th April people’ were allowed to eat first. Then, ‘the base people’ would eat more. They would get fish, for instance. Group chiefs made lists of who was in which group, and these lists were given to the village chief. But, ‘the base people’ knew who ‘the base people’ were.
The witness thought that she got away with being caught stealing food because she promised she would not do it again. But the “economic people” had reported the 15-year-old to a teacher and a messenger came and took the boy away.
Mr. Koppe delved into the credibility issue vis à vis Ung Saroeun’s declaration of a “mental disorder.” She evinced that, at the time she filed the civil party application form, she could not sleep because of recalling past events. Counsel contributed that “not sleeping is different from a mental disorder.” Ms. Ung replied that TPO had diagnosed her, and given her some medicine. Later, TPO told her that she no longer had “a mental disorder.”
Ms. Guissé reviewed the witness’s testimony concerning filling out the civil party application form, that she had known Ta Mok by sight, and had only seen Khieu Samphan on the one occasion. Ms. Ung had heard of Ieng Sary (who had been mentioned in newspaper articles her uncle had read to her in 1973 or 1974), and Duch (after 1979), so had put them on her application “because other people knew of them.” (Her Uncle Yem had worked at the Royal Palace and his whole family was killed at Choeung Ek).
Ms. Guiraud rose to present a clarification on the nature of the Civil Party documents. In addition to the application to become a civil party on which Ung Saroeun had put her thumbprint, there is a summary form drawn up by the Victim’s Unit which is not signed by the victim.
Dhieu Samphan and Nuon Chea were not mentioned in the original Civil Party application form that Ung Sareoun had filed but were added in a March 12, 2015, supplement. The defence lawyer was determined to find out why the additional information had come to light at this late date. After much grilling, it devolved that the witness and Chou Koemlan were born and still live in the same village. Ms. Ung talked to Ms. Chou about the leaders’ visit at the time “but not much as she was in a different unit.” She denied talking to Ms. Chou about the testimony the other woman had given before the Tribunal on February 27, 2015.
Ms. Guiraud interrupted to point out that the fact Ms. Chou had provided the information was in the application for this witness to be called. Ms. Guissé advanced that the issue was how did Ms. Ung contact her lawyer and the discussion she had with a prior witness, Chou Koemlan. Judge Lavergne chimed in that the question is problematic due to solicitor-client confidentiality, but Ms. Guissé did not think so as the form is not confidential. Kong Sam Onn offered that since the document does not state that it was done by a lawyer, one can ask how the document was completed (which gets around the issue of solicitor-client confidentiality). A Bench consultation later, Judge Fenz said Ms. Guissé could continue instructing the Civil Party lawyers to raise a hand if they feel there is an infringement of confidentiality.
Ung Saroeun made clear that she had come to the ECCC to provide further information, and that she had made the decision to do so after talking to Chou Koemlan. The day of the visit, she had seen two cars and five leaders. She had recognized Ta San because he came to her village “rather often” to visit relatives. She did not know what Ta San’s position had been only that he worked at the commune level.
The President informed Anta Guissé that her time had expired. As this brought the examination to a close, Judge Nil Nonn offered the civil party the opportunity to make an impact statement. It was short. She “want(ed an) award for lost material and property and for loss of her relatives.”
On probing by the judge if she had anything else to add, she came up with three questions directed at the two accused:
1. Why when she had worked very hard was she given insufficient food to eat?
2. Why were her relatives executed?
3. Why was no clothing provided?
Judge Nil Nonn dutifully explained to Ung Saroeun that the position of Nuon Chea and Khieu Samphan is that they are continuing to exercise their right to remain silent.
The President went on to notify all parties that Mr. Richard Dudman would be the next witness, and that he would be attending by video conference from the USA. (Ed. Note: Mr. Dudman is now almost 97 and unable to travel). There would be abbreviated sittings from March 31 to April 1, 2015, from 8:00AM to 10:00AM.
Mr. Koppe requested clarification on why the order of procedure had been revised to start the next examination with the Chamber, followed by the Prosecutors and then the Defence. The query did not sit well with the President. The matter had been decided by the Bench taking into account questions by the Bench, time constraints and to make the most effective use of time.
It was done “at the discretion of the Chamber.” Neither Mr. de Wilde nor Ms. Guiraud objected to the order of questioning of the witness. Ms. Guiraud magnanimously offered that the Defence could go before the Civil Parties. On that rare co-operative note, court adjourned.