Civil Parties Make Impact Statements on Their Suffering During Democratic Kampuchea

As on the previous two days, the final session of testimony from American journalist, Richard Dudman, produced few productive responses and did little to advance the facts of the case.

 

Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer, Marie Guiraud, declined the opportunity to examine Richard Dudman further.

 

Khieu Samphan Defence Counsel, Anta Guissé gave it a go but did not get far. Mr. Dudman felt he must have done preparation for his 1978 trip to Cambodia, but he could not recall exactly what this had comprised. Nor did he remember receiving any assurance of not to worry about any imminent attack by Vietnam during his sojourn in Cambodia. As he had no memory of his conversation with Pol Pot, he could not be of help comparing the leader’s accusation of Vietnamese expansionist ambitions to what he knows now. Likewise, the witness could not bring to mind Cambodia’s rapprochement with the Soviet Union or two Chinese MiGs flying over Phnom Penh. For what he believed to be behind Malcolm Caldwell’s murder, he fell back on what he had written at the time as he “doesn’t remember the circumstances.” With this, Ms. Guissé concluded her cross-examination followed by the Bench not availing themselves of the opportunity to ask the witness any questions.

 

Judge Nil Nonn thanked Richard Dudman for his contributions to ascertaining the truth and excused the aged newspaperman just 17 minutes into the session.

 

Co-Prosecutor Dale Lysak rose to further inform the court on the matter concerning Nuon Chea Defence Counsel, Victor Koppe’s challenge of yesterday on the use of the victim impact statements. Mr. Lysak referenced the Case 002/01 trial transcript of May 20, 2013, wherein Co-Prosecutor Keith Raynor had made ten points concerning such testimony, and enlightened the court that Mr. Koppe had agreed with all ten of them. The Chamber had then ruled “that parties may question Civil Parties on factual issues subject to time limitations.” Noting that it was “important for the record to be clear,” Mr. Lysak averred that, from the aforementioned date, all parties were aware of the uses to which the victim impact statements would be put. He suggested that, in the future, motions be filed in full, and not simply patched with brief excerpts from prior submissions.

 

Judge Fenz added that, in context, the decision on the issue at hand (E267/3) was referenced by the Nuon Chea Defence in its appeal. Page 9 of the decision deals with all of the issues raised by the Defence yesterday; page 21 states how the Chamber will deal with the impact statements.

 

Mr. Koppe answered that, although he now has had a chance to revisit the appeal brief and the Trial Chamber decision, he has “a completely different understanding of the ruling.” He opined that a distinction must be recognized between giving of impact and giving of facts. The lawyer maintained that, “in essence, (impact) is not evidence, that that is how (the Defence) understood the decision then and that is how (they) understand it now.” He further asserted that only ten minutes has been allotted for cross-examination, “confirms (their) interpretation.” The Defence claimed they have always acted on the basis of a fundamental difference in suffering testimony and real testimony. Mr. Koppe alleged that “there is unclarity (sic) as to what the law is … (as) what seems clear to other parties did not seem clear to (the Defence) at all.” He affirmed that the Defence needs equal time to question the up-coming Civil Parties.

 

Anta Guissé expressed her upset at the court’s reference to the Civil Party impact statements going to support moral and collective reparations as this, “means there has already been a conviction, a finding of guilt.” Hence, she was adopting Mr. Koppe’s contention that there was a difference between facts and moral and collective reparations.

 

Mr. Lysak dismissed the Defence position as “revisionist history.” He declared that since May, 2013, there has been “no ambiguity, no room for the Defence to claim that they didn’t know for what the impact statements would be used. It’s crystal clear this is an issue they made up after the judgment, after losing. It is a simple as that.”

 

The President cut off the debate which was quickly deteriorating into acrimony, and stated that the Chamber would take the matter into consideration. Court adjourned until 1 p.m. this afternoon.

 

After lunch, the President called the court to order to hear the impact statements of the suffering Civil Parties had experienced during DK. He insured that staff members of TVO were present in order to support the Civil Parties during their testimony, and “to give them strength” to testify about their physical, material and psychological injuries.

 

Ms. Guiraud acknowledged that she had the honour of starting the session, and explained to the Chamber that they had decided to put questions to the Civil Parties to help them come up with answers as to their suffering.

 

Tak Sann, is an illiterate, 67-year old woman who now lives in Saom commune, Keri Vong District, Takeo province. She collects firewood and has a small business. A widow, she has four children. During the Khmer Rouge years, she and her parents, husband, and children fled to Kampuchea Krom leaving behind their house. After only about seven to eight months in Vietnam, they were part of the second exchange program and brought back to Cambodia. She had no regrets about leaving Vietnam as she thought she was moving to a more prosperous area but, instead, she suffered. When the family arrived back in Tram Kok, they were unable to keep what they had brought. All of their belongings were relinquished into a pool of collective property. Then the family was broken up, and divided into different units. She gave birth alone shortly thereafter, and raised the baby alone. Although she missed her other children who could only come to see her on the 10^th and the 20^th of the month, there was nothing she could do about the arrangement. Ms. Tak sobbed audibly as she told the court how two children survived the regime but her husband disappeared and as did one of her siblings (translation problem? Later she alludes to losing a child).

 

Ms. Tak was forced to work carrying earth and fertilizer, and building a canal. The most difficult task was to transport a heavy a load of termite earth. She remembers falling from the weight of it, but she did not dare rest. Workers were threatened that if they did not complete their work assignment, they would not eat. At night, she worked digging pits in which to plant coconut trees. While pregnant, the witness worked until she went into labor.

 

The Civil Party suffered from chronic food deprivation. There were only vegetables in a bowl of watery soup to eat. Not only were the rations insufficient, but she had to save a portion of hers for her child. She did not dare steal anything; she just tried to survive, constantly afraid of being taken away and killed.

 

Mr. Koppe could contain himself no longer reciting an American saying: “If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, talks like a duck, it is a duck.” He objected to the Civil Party testifying rather than giving an impact statement, “the idea behind these sessions.”

 

Ms. Guiraud was incensed at her “learned friend’s objection.” She said that in the last ten minutes, the Civil Party had listed how she was uprooted from her home which was taken away from her, separated from her family, endured from long-term hunger and forced to work in inhumane conditions. The lawyer was adamant that this was suffering.

 

Judge Fenz delivered the results of the Bench consultation on the objection and the technique used of putting questions to elicit the impact. But, firstly, the judge chastised that the language being used “is of questionable taste.” Then she announced that, as there was no clear distinction between suffering and facts, for the next three days, the court would go ahead with the form but would remain open to reasoned submissions on the examination. She further stated that “the Defence is requested not to interrupt on the basis that they do not like the process until given the floor.”

 

That was not enough for Ms. Guiraud. She was “increasing perplexed by the attitude of her friend,” that the last objection, “was the last straw that broke the camel’s back.”

 

Ms. Tak broke down crying as she continued her story detailing how (after the Vietnamese came), the workers went on the carts with the Khmer Rouge until they were told not to follow them. Then she returned to her native village. Her pre-DK regime house was gone, and she missed her husband. She made a vow not to remarry. During annual rituals, she burns incense and prays for the souls of those she lost as she does not know where they actually died.

 

Mr. de Wilde waited for the Civil Party to compose herself before he picked up the thread. Tak Sann had been born in Kampuchea, and returned to Cambodia in 1976. Her family was told on arrival that they would be considered “an enemy” if they did not hand in their property. She did not regret doing so that much as she thought the goods would be used communally, and that they would be given enough to eat. In a harsh lesson, she found out to the contrary. Although the Krom were mixed in with the ‘17^th April people’ and ‘the base people,’ she felt they had to work harder than the other divisions of people. The ‘base people’ were the cooperative leaders. Tak Sann had had to taste fertilizer made with excrement to test that it was not too salty for the rice shoots. If the rice died, she had been told they would all be tortured.

 

When Mr. de Wilde referenced a document, Mr. Koppe remarked that he “understood the instructions of Judge Fenz, but this is now taking it a step further by presenting documents,” that that makes it testimony. Counsel also clarified for the record that his use of the duck expression was directed at the Civil Party lawyer and not at the Civil Party herself. and that he could not be held responsible for any misunderstanding due to bad translation.

 

Mr. de Wilde justified that he was only trying to see if Ms. Tak could identify one person who ended up a Kraing Ta Chang. The President overruled the objection, but Tak Sann did not know another person with her name or a Veou Ney.

 

Tak Sann reviewed for Mr. Koppe that the food rations were morning glory soup, sometimes with eggplants, and that, once in a while, she had received rice, meat or dessert. “Sometimes the soup was good; sometimes not.” She witnessed at mealtimes that ‘the base people’ bigger rations than she did. She “just bore the situation,” not letting others see that she “was weeping from hunger.”

 

The Civil Party does not know where her husband was taken to be killed. He was asked to go collect rice seeds and never returned to eat meals together with her at the cooperative.

 

After the break, Khieu Samphan Defence Counsel, Kong Sam Onn, worked through some discrepancies between Tak Sann’s Victim Identification Form and her evidence that she had been born in Vietnam. She apologized and said she was born in Soam commune, Takeo province, although she used to have Kampuchea Krom nationality. After a series of inquiries centering on who had helped Ms. Tak fill out forms, the President stepped in suggesting that Mr. Kong should focus his questions on her suffering. Tak Sann then confirmed that she still wants individual compensation for her house, cattle and buffaloes as well as claim for loss of her husband and child.

 

As this was the end of Tak Sann’s impact ‘statement’, Judge Nil Nonn thanked her and wished her a safe journey home.

 

Eam Yen was the next Civil Party on hand. Born in 1968, she now lives in Soam commune, Keri Vong District, Takeo province. She is a rice farmer with a husband and seven children.

 

Civil Party Co-Lawyer, Lor Chunthy, drew out the particulars of Eam Yen’s life under the Khmer Rouge. In 1976, her family was re-located to Toul Kruu village, and she was separated from her parents. Ms. Eam was forced to work digging a cubic meter of earth a day at a dam site or be deprived of food. In 1977, missing her parents dearly, she ran away to visit them. When caught, she was tortured by being buried up to her neck, and left without food and water for a few hours. EamYen said it was “the greatest pain (she) ever experienced,” and she remembers it vividly. She was told if she ran away again, she would be killed. Put back in her unit, she was assigned to cutting plants to make fertilizer and to carrying the bio-product. Two or three more attempts at escape were also unsuccessful, and resulted in her being arrested and returned to the cooperative to work on a dam. Hunger forced her to steal. Caught, she was tied up and whipped with a bamboo stick on her abdomen, and, again, deprived of food and water. After confessing her wrongdoing at a self-criticism meeting, she was sent back to work. Her life became even more miserable when the rest periods on the 10^th and 20^th days of the month were reduced to just one day on which she could visit her parents. Working day and night replaced the education of which Ms. Eam was deprived. The deprivations she suffered under the Khmer Rouge have marked EamYen indelibly: over-work during the regime hurt her physical heath and she is not strong; she was left without an education.

 

Eam Yen had a question for the accused. She wanted to know why they inflicted torture on children like herself. But, she was not to get her answer. President Nil Nonn informed her that Khieu Samphan and Nuon Chea are still holding to their right to silence.

 

Tomorrow, two more Civil Parties will tell the Chamber how their lives were impacted by Democratic Kampuchea. Court adjourned at 3:27p.m.