The “Master of Death” Was Only Following Orders
Pech Chim was not well during his final day of testifying before the ECCC. His condition was emblematic of the day’s squabbling.
Before Vincent Koppe, Nuon Chea Defence Counsel, continued his cross-examination of the former Secretary of District 105, he clarified with the court that the defence would have all day to question the witness, and then asked for an un-redacted copy of a statement Mr. Chim had made to OCIJ. Co-Prosecutor Dale Lysak informed the Chamber that he had, some three weeks ago, asked for authority from the Investigating Judges to release same but had not received a response as of yet. He added that the same information that is blocked out “actually appears in other un-redacted documents,” and offered to email OCIJ this morning to see if a decision could be elicited today.
After agreeing with the President that he would do his best not to ask any leading questions, Mr. Koppe got down to business. Pech Chim confirmed that Ta Soam’s wife, “Chit” is still alive and
living in Malai District, Banteay Meanchey. Mr. Chim said that Soam and Khom had had “the same political point of view: they were both “hard line followers of the ‘Party line.’” Due to being more mature and experienced than Khom, Boeun had “a better political stance than Khom in popularity and work achievement…but both were committed to the Party.”
Khom had died “early” of what Mr. Pech described as “swollen stomach disease.” She also had become unstable and cursed him a lot while he was taking care of her. He thought it better that Khom’s treating doctor provided a definitive cause of death as he could not do so.
Pech Chim arrived in the Central Zone in February, 1976, just after he had attended a study session at a party school where Nuon Chea was an instructor. He had no business in Tram Kak after that time.
A discussion ensued over Mr. Chim’s identification of two different handwritings on a report (supposedly from An) on “smashing” of 15,000 prisoners at Kraing Ta Chan. Pech Chim did not know whether the information was accurate as he “had nothing to do with” it. If he had received the document, he would have submitted it to the District for consideration. Mr. Lysak objected as leading to Mr. Koppe’s terminology that two handwritings in the one annotation was “something odd.” Tit for tat, the defence counsel shot back that he thought “the prosecution (was) doing nothing else but asking leading questions.” Mr. Chim contributed that “in (his) view, the handwriting below belonged to one person and the five lines above to another.” The witness stated that other than “it was a practice in Angkar, it (was) beyond (his) capacity to comment on this.” Mr. Koppe remarked that they “might need an expert on this.” He followed up by an inquiry as to whether Pech Chim had heard of forged documents before he left Tram Kak but the he had not.
Mr. Koppe moved on to Pech Chim’s knowledge of two meetings at which Ta Mok made announcements. Mr. Chim had not attended that prior to April 17, 1975, concerning the lack of authority by the District and the Sector to order killings. He was at a meeting held in Takeo after the May, 1975, assembly in Phnom Penh, which dealt with former regime personnel. The witness had heard Ta Mok direct that Lon Nol officers from Second Lieutenant to Colonel were not to be harmed. Soam and Boeun were also present along with Ta Mok’s son-in-law, Ran, 50-60 other representatives of the military, the districts and some of the communes, but not Meas Mut or Khom (who was on leave). Revenge killings were not a point of discussion on that occasion and the only speaker was Ta Mok. This followed ‘the working rule’ that whenever a superior spoke, a subordinate did not.” After an argument over whether Ta Mok’s announcement had implied that lower-ranking officers also were not to be harmed, Pech Chim confirmed that “as was logical, the lower-ranked ranked soldiers were not touched either.” He did not know the fate of the officers higher than colonel as they did not see any at base at that time, only their widows.
Pech Chim denied that any Cham were forced to eat pork. A problem had arisen due to the dining hall being communal eating and the soup had been cooked with pork. The matter was resolved by offering the Cham alternatives such as fish to eat.
Any issues concerning the Vietnamese living in Cambodia were resolved when they were returned to Vietnam under an exchange program. Some Vietnamese left their spouses and children behind in Cambodia. Pech Chim asserted that the Vietnamese had not been maltreated under DK but rather that they were considered “allies” as they had been mistreated under the former regime by Lon Nol soldiers. He claimed that all the Vietnamese agreed to return to Vietnam. The transfer was done under guidelines from Ta Mok.
After the morning break, Mr. Koppe graciously thanked Mr. Lysak for his suggestion that, since an answer had not been received from the Investigating Judges on the redacted document, that the counsel simply re-ask the same questions of the witness. Pech Chim responded to the first of these that the only cadre still alive who could testify about the Sector 13 organizational structure were Meas Mut and Chet. Mr. Chim had already given the court the names of the cadres from the Northwest Zone who are still alive and living in Oddar Meanchey. He was reluctant to repeat them today as some are in the military and the present government.
Se had gone to the rubber plantation with Pech Chim. He had worked in Sector 41 and was in charge of the old North Zone. He does not know the reason behind it, but Se was arrested on an order from the ‘upper echelon.’ Mr. Chim did not know before the defence counsel’s question today that he and his brother had been implicated as belonging to Se’s network.
Judge Lavergne interrupted to seek the source of this information and, specifically, if it came from a confession made under torture. Mr. Koppe coyly said it “was in the case file.”
An angry jurist demanded to know, “which elements in the case file?” Mr. Koppe defended that he was “not asserting anything,” that he had asked “a very general question,” provoking Judge Lavergne further by stating that he was “entitled not to answer (the Judge’s) question,” as to exactly where in the case file.
Co-Prosecutor Lysak was able to end the mystery. The reference was to the S-21 confession
of “Komchat” (spelling?), prisoner #47 on list E32792. Mr. Lysak averred that “attempts to put before the Chamber information induced by torture are inappropriate.” The Co-Prosecutor further strenuously objected to his colleague repeatedly “trying to use S-21 confessions as truth.” At this, Mr. Koppe applied to the Bench for “a clear ruling” on whether or not he is able to use elements of S-21 confessions, not as to guilt of the accused, but as a foundation for further questions. Judge Fenz wanted him to put his request in writing as “there is an agreement that torture-tainted evidence is prohibited.” She felt it was “too wide an issue to deal with summarily.” Counsel then condensed the question he wanted to ask down to whether he could ask if the witness was aware that Se had implicated him. The court reserved ruling until after lunch.
Pech Chim had limited additional information on the Khmer Krom. He offered that as there “is a sentiment of hatred from previous generation, we did not like the Vietnamese.” Ta Mok had announced that the Khmer Krom were their “national compatriots” and had “shared suffering.” The “political line” was that they had “to warmly welcome (the Khmer Krom) and treat them well because they had been mistreated by the Vietnamese.” The witness did not know if Ieng Sary and Son Sen were originally from Kampuchea Krom.
The term “moral offences” had several meanings. It could refer to an affair between a man and a woman; to disrespecting elders; to a man’s mistreatment of a woman; or to a woman committing an offence against a husband. There were regulations on how moral offences were to be handled, and there was no discrimination on the basis of gender: an offender was an offender whether a man or a woman. Punishment included being sent to farm in the fields or to raise pigs. The period of “refashioning” would depend on the individual’s behavior. As men and women lived in separate units, moral offences were rare. Pech Chim personally never had had such a case but had been told a story about a resister who had come down from the mountain and been removed by ‘the upper echelon’ for misconduct with the wife of a former soldier.
On the broader basis of human rights generally, Pech Chim averred that “everybody at all levels was equal.” For example, they had to do the same kinds of work; both men and woman could be chiefs.
The witness denied that there was conflict between the Party and “the Front.” He explained that “the Front was the public face; the Party was behind. The general public saw only the Front, not the party.” Then, seemingly contradicting his prior denial, Pech Chim said that after Ta Soam clarified that the Front belonged to the Party, “the situation quieted down and the separation closed between those working for the Front and those working for the Party.”
Mr. Koppe repeatedly tried to get Mr. Chim to state whether or not red ink had to be used to cross out the names of those to be “smashed.” The counsel apologized, but there was a problem stemming from not having original documents and not knowing from the copies whether the annotations were in red or blue ink. A conclusive answer was not forthcoming.
On miscellaneous matters, Mr. Chim knew that Phy had died but he did not know the cause of his death and cleared up that Tram Kak district had 14 communes with many villages. He was able to add Angk Tasome, Leay Baur, Popel, Cheang Tomg, Bourei Cholsar and Pok Mabai (spelling?) to Mr. Koppe’s commune list.
President Nil Nonn reported after lunch that the Chamber was reserving a ruling on Mr. Koppe’s question as it required a reasoned decision and the Bench needed time to review the issue.
With the permission of Khieu Samphan’s Defence Counsel, Arthur Vercken, Mr. Koppe took the floor to ask a follow up question based on the un-redacted version of the witness’s statement that he had just obtained. The lawyer wanted to know if “Hoeung,” now a Major General and advisor to the Prime Minister, and “Keo,” now a Brigadier-General, are both from the Northwest or Southwest Zone. They are from Kampot province, which was in the Southwest Zone.
Under Arthur Vercken’s inquiries, Mr. Pech described the “war like events” in Tram Kak province during 1970-1975, as “intense.” There was a “raging battlefield” and an aerial bombardment that lasted for 200 days and nights when “the planes kept returning.” He hid in a trench only emerging at night. They were afraid to use firewood as the smoke might be detected and they would be bombed. At first, the fighting was worse around Angk Tasome, but later it was more so in Takeo town. The witness was not aware of Lon Nol soldiers and South Vietnamese committing atrocities against the Vietnamese in Tram Kak district. The Vietnamese army withdrew in 1972 and, shortly thereafter, arrangements were made to repatriate any Vietnamese living in Cambodia.
Ta Kith and Ta Mok were brothers-in-law. Pech Chim knew “Sim,” who was District Secretary of Traeng District. He had not seen his wife “Sam” since Sim died. Yeay Khom “had psychiatric issues” while she was still at her District post. She received treatment for the first episode in Vietnam, and subsequently recovered for several months. On the second occasion of the illness, the District administrators found her a Vietnamese doctor but the treatment did not work. (The Vietnamese army had come with fully-equipped medical personnel). Mr. Pech did not know a “Nam Son” (spelling?)
The expression, “Above Ta Mok’ head is only his hat,” referred to only sky being above the hat. Pech Chim called it “a mockery, a sarcastic term.”
Mr. Pech thought that Ta Mok and Pol Pot had got along well prior to 1978-1979.
He did not know when his brother, Kith, replaced Prak as he, himself, had been transferred to the
Central Zone by that time, and did not pay any attention to his sibling’s appointment. The witness had given contradictory evidence as to the latter date, but Mr. Vercken deduced from the fact that Pech Chim had been present in Tram Kak to receive the medal awarded to the district, that he must have left for Kampong Cham in 1977, not 1976, as he had testified.
Pech Chim did not know if Boeun had been promoted to the District level after he left. He was able to confirm that there was a railway running through both Tram Kak and Traeng, and that two canals were built under San supervision after he had left. Someone in Office 105 told him when he went back to see them that Sieng had escorted Nuon Chea and Khieu Samphan during the leaders’ visit.
After the break, Mr. Pech outlined how creating worksites was a collective decision of the Zone together with the District. For example, the Zone would tell the District to build a dam. The District Committee would then identify an appropriate location and advise the Zone. Once the District received the Zone’s approval, they would implement construction of the facility.
Only the unopened envelopes from Kraing Ta Chan that dealt with Tram Kak were forwarded first to the District. Those regarding Traeng and Kirivong bypassed District 105 going directly to the regional office.
The heavy questions came at the end of four days of examination of an elderly man who was obviously tired. But not too tired to disclaim responsibility when it suited him. Pech Chim claimed that “eliminating traitors” happened on the instructions of the Front and the Party. He vowed that the District level tried “to re-educate them and mediate conflict to build solidarity.”
He “did not do anything further than that.” When Mr. Pech responded that “the overall decisions …(on) suppressing traitors” were made by the Party representative, Mr. Vercken pointed out that Pech Chim was a member of the Party. Pech Chim belittled another witness calling him by his nickname of “the master of death” as the words of only a few out of the 250,000 people in Tram Kak District. He said he “avoided being too harsh, too cruel,” but that death was a “natural occurrence” in war. He admitted he “followed the Party line…as per the instructions,” but it “was not (his) intention to put the blame on the Sector.” He was not “evading his real responsibility” as Mr. Verken had challenged because he “knew (he) did not do it.”
Kong Sam Onn, Khieu Samphan National Defence Counsel, lobbed the witness ‘softballs.’ Pech Chim outlined for him that the two top positions the District Committee belonged to Party representatives. Next down was responsible for women’s affairs, then the rep for military issues, until reaching himself, (in charge of economic affairs). When he was appointed District Secretary he assumed the additional burden of Party affairs.
Pech Chim resolved many issues directly with the concerned communes. He distributed medicine received from Phnom Penh to the hospitals, communes and mobile units. Some people had relatives send medicines and clothing. No arrangements were made to purchase medicines from Vietnam. Often people would come to him regarding releasing their relatives as they did not dare to approach Khom directly. Results varied: If the request was reasonable, some were released; some were not.
There were few cases of arrests as Mr. Pech tried to avoid having people arrested by making further enquiries about the arrest reports. If the charge had arisen from minor conflicts (some 80-90% of the incidences), the District would educate the parties on the need to live peacefully with each other and to compromise. Thefts of food would be resolved at the commune level, and no one was sent to prison for stealing food.
At the end of the defence cross-examination, Co-Prosecutor Lysak requested the Chamber ask the witness to clear up a major inconsistency in his testimony. Pech Chim had testified both that Ta Mok had forbidden harming low-level Lon Nol officers and that Ta Khom had disseminated Ta Soam’s instructions to purge the same enemy soldiers and officers. As there were hundreds of Kraing Ta Chan documents on the arrests of Second Lieutenants and low-ranking officers, the Co-Prosecutor asked for clarification.
After a Bench consultation, the President gave the prosecutors and the defence a further five minutes each to examine the witness.
Pech Chim evaded explaining the discrepancy. He was “confused” as to the question as he had “been bombarded with too many questions.” Kong Sam Onn tried to come to his rescue arguing that the Prosecutor’s five minutes had run out, and that “the Chamber has no obligation to ensure that a witness’s statements are consistent. It is the Chamber’s obligation to determine the truth.” But the Bench wanted an answer. Mr. Chim complained he had “been bombarded with too many questions.” Proving he is a quick study, he then parroted the defence counsel and stated that “it is in Your Honors’ discretion to Judge the statements. My recollection is not great.” Likewise, he constructively refused to answer as to whether Sector Chief Soam had instructed the District to make the arrests of the soldiers, but rather reiterated that he did not witness the arrests or issue instructions for the arrests.
Mr. Koppe declined to enter the fray, opining that “the witness’s answers were crystal clear.”
President Nil Nonn thanked Pech Chim for his “valuable contributions to ascertaining the truth,” and excused him from the court.
The trial resumes Monday with a hearing on Kraing Ta Chan documents.