Aek Hoeun and the Wheel of History

The Tribunal has been seized with having to rule on the admissibility of evidence allegedly obtained through torture. It will be an important ruling with precedential value not only to the proceedings before the ECCC but also for other international tribunals. Nicholas Koumjian, International Co-Prosecutor, requested an oral hearing prior to the Chamber making its decision.

He cited three additional reasons for wanting to address the court on the matter. Firstly, that the Nuon Chea Defense’s claim that they have filed the refusal to admit torture-tainted evidence as grounds for appeal “is incorrect.” He said they have filed submissions about the issue, but that it is not a listed ground for appeal. Secondly, the Co-Prosecutor opined that all of the questions asked by the Defense “were irrelevant…and can’t be used to prove the truth of what’s asserted.” For instance, asking a witness whether he knew that Chou Chet had implicated him. And, thirdly, that allowing the use of such evidence “encourages torture.”

 

Mr. Koumjian replied to Judge Lavergne that he expected that only an hour would be necessary but that “one session might be helpful.” He outlined that there are many uses where such evidence is admissible, and gave as an example when it is used against the torturers. The Co-Prosecutor also requested a protocol for when torture-tainted evidence would be admitted.

 

President Nil Nonn recognized the issue “is of a critical nature;” the judges would “deliberate … and inform the parties in due course.” Judge Nil then qualified the new witness, Aek Hoeun, a 78-year-old man, born in Takeo but now a resident of Battambang from where he was appearing via video link due to his health. He and his wife (whom he described as being Sino-Khmer) had six children, one of whom has died.

 

International Co-Prosecutor Vincent De Wilde further delved into the familial background of the witness. Mr. Aek’s maternal grandfather was “pure Vietnamese.” Because his father had been a village chief under the Lon Nol regime, as well as his mother’s being pure Vietnamese born in Kampuchea Krom, he as well as his parents were categorized by the Khmer Rouge (and therefore under threat), as having “undesirable tendencies.” Then things got interesting: Ta Chim was both a cousin and brother-in-law of Aek Hoeun. Saom Don from the District Office was a cousin. His brother (Heng) was “a great Khmer Rouge army chief.” Another brother, Yeav, took over from Ta Saom as District Head in 1976. Unfortunately, these family connections had not provided Mr. Aek much protection from the consequences of having “undesirable tendencies” during DK. Heng had died in 1973 and Yeav lived “a long way away.” Only Ta Chim helped, and “rescued him from the claws of Yeay Khom.”

 

Prior to the revolution, Aek Hoeun had been a Group Leader in Tram Kak. After liberation, he “was crushed by the wheel of history,” and dismissed from his position. In April, 1975, Ta Chim first had him guarding his house and later put him to work in the District Office in charge of off-loading rice and salt trucks. The witness seemed to be somewhat confused about when he left the District Office to join Ta Chim in Kampong Cham in the East Zone. He had originally told OCIJ investigators that that had happened in 1978, but in the current hearing insisted it was August 1977, all the while saying that it was just before the Vietnamese liberation and when Chup plantation had been attacked by the Vietnamese.

 

Aek Hoeun off-loaded the trucks of food aid (mainly rice from China) up until the time that Yeay Khom left (in 1976). Then he was in charge of the Registry Department for three years. His function there was not bookkeeping but rather “to carry stuff,” (for example: poles). Mr. Aek claimed to know nothing about security matters other than Yeay Khom “received orders from the provinces (sic) and passed orders to lower levels.” But he was aware that people who were arrested were sent to Yeay Khom or Ta Chim, both of whom had responsibility for security and both of whom had security forces to receive the arrested people.

 

Several other cadres worked at the District Office. Saom Don was in charge of bookkeeping (defined as “collecting the work force, receiving and distributing materials or tools, and logistics).” Aek Hoeun had known Pi well. In 1970, Pi had been a messenger for Ta Chen before he was transferred to District 107 to work in logistics. Later, he became Chief of District 107. After the fall of the Khmer Rouge, he was the subject of a revenge killing by villagers. Roush “was close to Yeay Khom,” and dealt with arrests. He, too, was killed by angry villagers when the Vietnamese came. Khorn was in charge of “repayments” (translation?) in the District Office. Mr. Aek was adamant that Ip Duch was never in the District Office. He said Duch worked with Ta Pi until he was transferred to the East Zone. He corrected the Co-Prosecutor’s understanding that this Duch had been in charge of Youth. That had been “Won’s” responsibility;“Duch always stayed with Pi.” Won is still alive. The witness had no knowledge about whether any of the above had gone to Kraing Ta Chan. Aek Hoeun said he, himself, did not know about Kraing Ta Chan until the year 2000 when he was told about the many bodies found there. After Ta Chim left, Hou Chen (who is also still alive), became greffier, but Boeun Chaing (spelling?) was in charge of lists.

 

After the morning break, Mr. de Wilde focused his attention on occurrences at Wat Champa. Khieu Samphan Defense Counsel, Kong Sam Onn, objected as Takeo does not fall into the scope of Case 002/02. The Co-Prosecutor replied that there was a “need to understand the context of events that happened close to Champa Leu pagoda and the nature of who was targeted” there.

The president agreed. But, Aek Hoeun did not know if anyone was killed in a nearby military barracks prior to the pagoda incident. Wat Champa was located in Kapel village to the west of Angk Tasome. When the evacuees came in from all over the country, “the streets were clogged with people.” He could not estimate how many. Those from Takeo town were the first to arrive at the pagoda where they stayed for a week. Then they were distributed to the cooperatives and villages. As he had not attended preparatory meetings to plan for the evacuees, Mr. Aek did not know if the identification of Lon Nol officers and officials among the migrating population had been discussed.

 

Mr. Kong objected to these questions as being repetitive. Mr. de Wilde defended his approach saying that the witness’s answers had been unclear. The Chamber agreed that it also needed clarification. Eventually, Aek Hoeun did admit that he had learned through his own work activities that the Khmer Rouge had engaged in propaganda. They had broadcast to the people that if they listed their former occupations, they would be allowed to return to them. He knew that soldiers, police officers and deputy chiefs had, as Mr. de Wilde put it, “got caught in the trap,” disclosed the information, and “thereafter were led away.” The witness saw them “redistributed to villages and communes,” but not at the pagoda again.

 

Aek Hoeun had heard about the gathering at Wat Champa Leu so went to “have a look, once…for only an hour.” The only authorities he recognized there were Saom Don and Sim, (Saom Don’s superior); he did not know if Ta Mok ultimately was in charge or not. Mr. Aek knew that lists of the new people were sent to the villages (but he did not say from whom). Mr. de Wilde moved on.

 

The witness remembered that more than Lon Nol soldiers were killed both before and after the 1975 “liberation.” The orders to kill included “all capitalist and reactionaries.” Teachers, deputy chiefs and chiefs were also “crushed by the will of history.”

 

The evacuees were made to write their biographies “to identify their political tendencies.” Aek Hoeun said he was “implicated” because he had relatives who had come from Phnom Penh, and that he was re-educated because of it: “Historical wheel was in full motion.” This expression originated with Ta Khom. Whenever she chaired mass meetings, she would say that capitalists and reactionaries were to be smashed and then arrests would be made in various communes. In 1976, Ta Mok chaired three consecutive meetings on building dams, but another point of his presence was to discover who had killed his Third Assistant and friend, Cheer (spelling?). He declared he would bury the murderer up to their neck. As Khom had been responsible for Cheer’s death, she “fled in fear.” Afterward this, no one else used the “historical wheel” expression.

 

The Chief of the District Youth made lists of people “with political tendencies” which were sent on to the District Office. The compendiums also served the purpose of selecting youth to work for the District Office.

 

Aek Hoeun knows Yeay Boeun, and described her as the wife of Ta Chorn, Chief of Popel commune. After Chhay and Chim had been transferred, she was in the District Office “with a man,” but the witness did not know which one had been the “deputy” and which one had been the “chief.” He did not know if Yeay Boeun had sent biographies to “the Higher Echelon” to make decisions on arrests. He “was a simple villager; only those who dealt with these matters would know. But he did recollect that soldiers were sent to the District Angkar. People whose names came back from above “circled in red ink were then arrested.” They were not detained but were “executed immediately.” Those who committed sexual offences such as having affairs with the wives of soldiers serving on the front lines, would be re-educated. They would be incarcerated near the District Office in Ang Rokar. Depending on their work performance (carrying earth), they would be released in three to six months.

 

The District Office was far from the office of the District Committee. It was about 300 meters away from the Ank Rokar market. The one District Office was also the Logistics Office and the Commerce Office. The latter was from where materials were distributed. The chief was based there as well.

 

After lunch, Mr. de Wilde continued his examination with questions about the re-education office which Aek Hoeun said was headed by Meng. He added that, as he has not seen Meng since August, 1978, he did not know if he is still alive or, if so, where he might be living. He did remember that the cadre militia worked with Meng on security matters. He had “seen with (his) own eyes,” that when there were cases of misconduct in the village, the District would arrest the perpetrators and send them to Meng. He said it was “not true” that such prisoners would be sent elsewhere or that any of them would have been executed. Mr. Aek insisted that “at the end of a month or a month and a half” (which contradicted his morning testimony that re-education was for three to six months), prisoners were released and sent back to their homes. He has not seen or been in touch with any of these former prisoners since 1979.

 

Aek Hoeun had heard of Office 204 in Tram Kak. He said the prisoners there “worked at cleansing” (translation: re-education?) until 1979. As they did not have much to eat, many had died of malnutrition: “They died like beasts. No one buried them.”

 

The witness knew of no assembly of Lon Nol officials and officers in 1977, but officers were identified and sent to the District for a period of “around the clock intense work.” The Youth Leader at the District level would report the officers to the District who would forward same to the “province,” (Sector 13). Those whose names were circled in red would be arrested.

 

Mr. Hoeun said discipline was “not stricter” for Lon Nol soldiers than for “base people.” He maintained that it was the same for all. “Everyone was on the same footing: the same rice, having to respect one another…;” “not having the right to move about freely;” having to carry earth and plant trees; “not looking at one another with contempt.” Mr. Kong objected (on the basis that it was a conclusion), to the Co-Prosecutor’s asking the witness if it “wasn’t a case of having the same obligations as opposed to having the same rights.” The President ruled that the objection was well-founded, and directed that the question be rephrased. Aek Hoeun agreed that “you had to keep your mouth shut.” If you complained (for example, about food rations), you were “immediately considered ‘an opponent’ of the cooperative and led away.” “‘Base people’ kept watch over ‘new people’. People watched over one another. The policy was applicable to both ‘new’ and ‘old’ people.”

 

Aek Hoeun had been categorized as an “undesirable” in March, 1975.

 

Kon Sam Onn interrupted the Co-Prosecutor’s repeated quoting from Boeun Yeay’s OCIJ statement with “not so much as an objection as an observation.” He noted that, since she had appeared before the Tribunal, her testimony from court “has better probative value” than her interviews with the investigators.

 

The witness agreed that those who opposed the regime were called “heavy criminals” because their behavior “created conflicts within the coops.” Communes had no authority to arrest and detain. The commune would send a report with names circled in blue to the District. The District would send it on to Sector. People whose names returned to the commune circled in red would be arrested by the militia on the request of the District. They would be taken to a forest about 200 meters from Kraing Ta Chan and executed without trial. “Once arrested, that would be the end of it.” Mr. Aek reiterated that those arrested for minor offences would be sent to a re-education office and not beaten and tortured. Minor offences were such as throwing crockery or pots and pans into the water; “opponents” were members of the CIA and KGB. (The District would arrest the alleged spies themselves, without going through Sector). He disagreed with Yeay Boeun, and denied that people were punished for the minor offence of food theft as he “(had seen) everyone doing such things,” without repercussions.

 

Aek Hoeun had seen the lists with names circled in red and blue in the Commerce Office. After the reports were read, they had been placed in a basket and used for cigarette paper.

 

Commune chiefs “did not dare not to accept the instructions from the District.”

 

As “a simple inhabitant, not an official,” he had never attended District or Sector meetings. Only objectives and immediate plans to be implemented were discussed in open meetings.

 

Aek Hoeun stated that there were no Khmer Krom living in District 105 in 1976 to 1978, only Vietnamese born in Cambodia who were called “Yuan.” There had been one exchange program to return people who had fled to Vietnam in 1972 to escape the Lon Nol regime. (Mr. Aek detailed how “Yuan” had been herded into a school and burned alive by Lon Nol soldiers). But, some of the returnees had had conflicts in the cooperatives for doing such things as destroying knives so Ta Mok cancelled the exchanges. By June, 1976, there was a plan to purge the Cambodian Vietnamese. The communes identified them not from lists but because they spoke Vietnamese. Ta Chhay issued orders for the communes to assemble the “Yuan,” and Lon (a member of the District Office and Ta Mok’s brother-in-law), made arrangements for trucks to collect them (included their Cambodian spouses, children and “unborn children.”). Aek Hoeun confirmed prior-witness Cheang’s statement that the victims had been told that they were being taken to the District but they were taken to the forest and killed. Mr. Aek claimed that Lon Nol killed more Yuan than Pol Pot. The massacres ended before 1977 when Yeay Boeun and Ouch became the new District heads. (The Co-Prosecutor mentioned, but did not pursue, the contradiction that Yeay Boeun had sworn she had become Deputy Chief of the District in October, 1978). Aek Hoeun did not know the rationale behind killing the children. He knew that the District received the plan from Sector but not if Sector received it from the Center.

 

Mr. De Wilde presented Mr. Aek with three lists from different communes of Khmer Krom and Lon Nol soldiers, and asked if he would like to revise his statement that there were no Khmer Krom in Tram Kak District. The witness had not seen the tabulations before as he “was not informed of such things.”

 

Civil Party Lawyer, Ty Srinna, sought some clarifications. Aek Houen told her it was on instructions from the District that the communes and villages prepared housing and food for the evacuees after the fall of Phnom Penh. Neang Sim was the District Chief in charge of ensuring the preparations were made. As many of the inhabitants were working far away from their villages, evacuees were assigned accommodation in these empty homes. China donated rice for a year and a half (from 1975 to May, 1976), but there “was not enough food for everyone.”

 

Aek Houen did not know whether Khom had “invented the slogan: the Wheel of History.” He understood that it was the former personnel of the Sihanouk regime that she wanted to crush.

 

Everyone (“old people” as well as “new people,” and with no distinction between ethnic groups), had worked on building dams. Mr. Aek reported that “at first people were not maltreated,” but they did “sometimes bleed and die on the worksites.” Everyone was also watched. “New people” lived in his home, and he knew there were listeners below the house at night. If the eavesdroppers heard anything critical of the regime, they would arrest the complainers and take them away “never to be seen again.” No one was ever told about the arrests that occurred only at night. Neighbors would simply realize that the victims were not there in the morning. It was not spoken about openly. The disappearances were a source of fear for everyone, “even the chiefs were afraid.”

 

The witness confirmed there had been “many cases (of forced marriages) in all the cooperatives.” As an example of torture of someone who had voiced her disagreement, he told a story of a woman who did not want anything to do with her husband because of his skin disease. She was taken to a graveyard to frighten her into consummating her marriage.

 

Ta Phim had said the original plan formulated by leading cadres, Hou Youn and Hy Nim, had been for Buddhism, currency and markets to be abolished slowly. “Pol Pot did not agree with doing it gradually.” (Hou Youn and Hy Nim were executed as a result of falling out of favor over this policy). Aek Houen averred that “if the people could have practiced Buddhism, the regime may not have fallen.” Defrocked monks had to carry earth but did not work mixing with women.

 

Only the families of soldiers killed on the battlefield were notified of their deaths. Relatives of others were not given the opportunity of providing a ritual for the dead.

 

Victims who were killed were just left where they were massacred. There were not buried in pits. “There were a lot of bodies on the ground.”

 

It was a somber end to the day. Court adjourned and will resume the final day of Aek Houen’s testimony on the morrow.