Testimony Addresses Arrests of Northwest Zone Cadres in Sector 5
The ECCC hearing on August 17th 2015 continued the testimony of Trapeang Thma Dam worker Chhit Yoeuk, who provided information on the arrests of Northwest Zone cadres and the arrival of East Zone and Southwest Zone cadres in Sector 5. In the afternoon session, the testimony of mobile brigade worker Chhum Seng focused mainly on the arrests of Northwest Zone cadres and former Lon Nol soldiers. Both testimonies largely revolved around Ta Val’s and other Northwest Zone cadres’ role at Trapeang Thma Dam and their arrests in 1977.
For a short summary of the crimes which are alleged to have been committed by the defendants at the TT Dam worksite—crimes against humanity including enslavement, executions, and forced marriages—read the beginning of the July 27th post here.
The character of Khmer Rouge cadres Ta Val and Ta Hoeung
At the beginning of the morning session, Trial Chamber Greffier Se Kolvuthy confirmed that all parties were present, with accused person Nuon Chea participating from his holding cell, except Judge You Ottara who would be absent during today’s hearing. His replacement was national Judge Thou Mony. Twenty-five people from the Rotary Peace Center at Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok as well as Cambodian visitors from Takeo Province followed the proceedings in the public gallery.
The floor was first given to Co-Lawyer for Nuon Chea Victor Koppe, who opened the second part of Chhit Yoeuk’s testimony by seeking more detail about the personalities of Ta Val and Ta Hoeun. Mr Yoeuk responded that he could only recall that Ta Val’s “speech was awkward.” As for Ta Hoeung, the witness believed that he was “very gentle”. He said that Ta Val was from Kampong Chham province. He could not recall the political opinions of Ta Val, and would focus on the instructions given to him at work. This prompted Mr. Koppe to refer to an earlier interview given by the witness, quoting the witness’s statement that “everybody knew Ta Val. When you asked people in villages, they will tell you that Ta Val was mean […]. According to his behavior and speech, he might have been a teacher […] because he spoke French with Ta Hoeung.”[1] Mr. Yoeuk reiterated that he concluded from Ta Val’s speech that he was “a mean person” and that the workers “were afraid of him.” With respect to Ta Val’s and Ta Hoeung’s knowledge of French, Mr Koppe again read out excerpts of the witness’s earlier statement, where the witness asserted that if Ta Hoeung and Ta Val wished to discuss matters that should not be heard by the workers, they would speak in French.[2] Mr. Yoeuk responded that he could not hear Ta Val clearly, since he was quite far away from him.
Mr Koppe then proceeded to ask about Ta Hoeung, who has been asserted by other witnesses as being a “top intellectual”. Mr. Koppe mentioned that there will most likely be a witness testifying next week, who is called Ta Hoeung and is also a top intellectual. To this, Mr. Yoeuk responded that he indeed heard that Ta Hoeung was an intellectual, but he could not give further details.
Referring back to Thursday`s testimony, Mr. Koppe asked the witness about his demotion by Ta Val. Mr. Yoeuk did not know the reason for his being demoted and what mistake he committed. At the time, he was assigned to collect fertilizer, and did not dare to ask any questions. However, he heard later that some people said that he was the son of the deputy chief of a village and that this was the reason for his demotion.
Arrests of Northwest Zone cadres and the Arrival of the East Zone Cadres in Sector 5
Moving on, Mr. Koppe asked about the arrest of Ta Van, Ta Hoeung and other cadres. Mr. Yoeuk could not recollect the exact day of their arrests, but said it took place sometime in 1977 or 1978. When being told by Mr. Koppe that this arrest took place in June 1977, he still could not recall the exact time. Mr. Koppe then asked whether their arrests coincided with the demotion of the witness. Mr. Yoeuk stated that his own arrest took place during rainy season in 1976. Pressing on, Mr. Koppe asked whether it occurred a few months or just briefly before the arrest of the cadres, to which Mr. Yoeuk responded that his demotion took place “seven or eight months before their arrest.” Mr. Koppe sought further clarification by asking whether he was demoted between the period of February 1977, when the construction of the Trapeang Thma Dam began, and June 1977, when Ta Val and other cadres were arrested. The witness did not know the answer to this question. Neither did he know who arrested them, since he was in a mobile unit and only heard from other people that they disappeared.
Mr. Koppe then turned to the arrival of East Zone cadres in Sector 5 by asking Mr. Yoeuk whether he could recollect their arrival and the arrest of Ta Val and Ta Hoeung. Mr. Yoeuk could not shed much light on this matter, stating that he did not know what happened, except that the Southwest cadres replaced the existing cadres. Pressed further, he stated that it took place in mid-1977, but that he could not recall the day of arrival of the cadres. Answering Mr. Koppe’s question, Mr. Yoeuk said that he did not know that the newly arrived cadres were from the East Yone at the time, but someone told him so at a later stage. The East Zone cadres arrived around two months before the Southwest Zone cadres took power in Sector 5.
When Mr. Koppe queried about the cadres Ta Rin and Ta Chhoeung who worked at Trapeang Thma Dam, the witness answered that they were from the Southwest Zone. Mr. Koppe then inquired about the cadre Thou, who was from the East. Mr. Yoeuk could not recall Thou’s tasks, since he did not hold any meetings and did not know where he went. He also could not remember the month in which the Southwest Cadres arrived and reiterated that he only knew they arrived in mid-1977. Asked whether the Southwest Zone cadres came in groups or one by one, Mr. Yoeuk stated that they arrived in groups. This prompted Mr. Koppe to read an excerpt from the witness’s DC-Cam statement,[3] where Mr. Yoeuk had stated that they only started coming in groups once Ta Val was arrested. He clarified this matter now by responding that cadres from the Southwest Zone came in groups of four or five before Ta Val was arrested, but came in “large groups” later.
When Mr. Koppe queried whether the witness was relieved at the time of Ta Val’s arrest, Mr. Yoeuk said that he only knew that “he was a mean person”, but did not know “whether he was a killer or not”, since he was quite young at the time.
To continue his line of questioning, Mr. Koppe stated that at one point in time, Ta Hoeung was replaced by Ta Rin, but before the latter took over power, there was an interim called Ta Chhil. Mr. Yoeuk said that he never worked with him and only knew that he was appointed on a provisional basis in charge of sector five. When asked what he knew about Ta Chhil’s family relations, Mr. Yoeuk answered that Ros Nhim was Ta Chhil’s father, but that he did not know who his wife was, since “they were in the upper echelon, and people a lower place in the hierarchy were not aware of this.”
Moving on, Mr. Koppe referred to Mr. Yoeuk’s DC-Cam interview, where he stated that when Ta Rin replaced Ta Val, “everything changed.” Asked about clarification of this term, the witness stated that “in terms of the change, the situation at the time was chaotic […] the time that the SWZ cadres arrived, all of us were rather terrified at the time.” Mr. Koppe then continued to read excerpts of the DC-Cam statement, asking about the personality of Ta Rin. In this statement, Mr. Yoeuk had stated that Ta Rin was polite and that
“Among the region committee, I think he was different from others. He was thorough and just […] For example, when we butchered a cow, we had to make sure that everyone got the meat. He even checked every bag of fish in the warehouse. He was afraid that we kept some for our own. I was impressed by him […]. Everybody admired him.”[4]
When further questioned what he meant with this, the witness stated that “as for the distribution of food supply or anything, he would follow […] whatever we did. He was a meticulous person; he would try to understand everything we did.”
Pressed on by Mr. Koppe about the difference between Ta Val and Ta Rin’s behavior, Mr. Yoeuk explained that “Ta Val was very thorough, very strict. […] He was very meticulous. As for Ta Rin, he was also very meticulous, but he was in charge of economic affairs. He wanted to make sure that it was equitably distributed if we had anything to share.” Mr. Koppe then proceeded to ask whether living and working conditions changed when Ta Hoeung was replaced by Ta Rin, to which the witness replied that there was not much difference. This prompted Mr. Koppe to refer to other evidence that suggested that work at the dam became harsher when Ta Rin arrived. The witness remembered one difference, namely that during Ta Val’s supervision workers used to work at night, which did not occur anymore when Ta Rin came. The conditions at work itself, however, stayed the same.
Returning to the arrest of Ta Val, Mr. Koppe asked whether Mr. Yoeuk knew about the reasons for his arrest. Mr. Yoeuk denied this, explaining that “at the time we were down below the structure. We did not have any knowledge about what happened at the upper level.”
Next, Mr. Koppe started to say that other witnesses had indicated that Ta Hoeung and Ta Val were involved in collecting weapons to start a revolution. At this point, International Co-Prosecutor Nicholas Koumjian objected to the question, since it was leading in his view. President Nil Nonn announced that Mr. Koppe had to rephrase the question. Returning to the question, Mr. Koppe inquired again whether Mr. Yoeuk did not know the reasons for Ta Val’s and Ta Hoeung’s arrest, which the witness confirmed.
Mr. Koppe then proceeded to start presenting another witness’s statement, to which Mr. Koumjian again objected, based on the same reasons as before. Mr. Koppe responded that he merely aimed at refreshing the witness’s memory, and if he then still does not know the answer, the witness could say so. The Trial Chamber judges conferred, after which Judge Claudia Fenz sought clarification from Mr. Koppe: was the statement he was referring to a DC-Cam statement? Mr. Koppe confirmed this.[5] Further, had the witness been questioned by the court at pre-trial stage before? As far as Mr. Koppe knew, this was not the case.[6] However, according to Mr. Koppe, the defense team for Nuon Chea is considering asking this witness to testify either during this segment or the segment relating to purges. Judge Fenz then stated that Mr. Koppe could proceed with the questioning, since this would in fact confront Mr. Yoeuk with another witness’s statement. Mr. Koppe moved on to present the document to the witness, asking whether he knew this person. To this, Mr. Yoeuk responded that he had heard of his name, but had never met him in person.
Mr. Koppe further confronted Mr. Yoeuk with another excerpt of the witness’s interview given to DC-Cam[7], where it was indicated that Hoeung had a plan to make mobile unit workers soldiers to fight Khmer rouge. Mr. Yoeuk replied that he had never heard of such a plan. Mr. Koppe then moved on to ask about a plan created by Ta Chiel, Ta Hoeung and Ta Nhim, as stated by the witness.[8] Mr. Yoeuk stated that he was unaware of any secret plan. When being asked whether his unawareness might be related to his demotion by Ta Val, he answered that he did not know about this, since he was focusing on his work.
Authority Structure in Sector 5
After the break, the Co-Counsel for Nuon Chea took the floor again. Mr Koppe started by presenting an excerpt from another witness[9] to Mr. Yoeuk. After having looked at the statement, the witness confirmed that he knew the person. According to him, they were in the mobile unit together. Mr. Koppe continued by asking whether he knew about a plan by Ta Hoeung and Ta Val to arm all mobile unit workers and escape to Vietnam. Mr. Yoeuk stated that he did not know.
Moving on to the role of Im Chaem, Mr. Koppe inquired about her role and Mr. Yoeuk’s relation to her. Mr.Yoeuk stated that to his recollection, she was the chair of Preah Net Preah District Committee. When the Vietnamese troops entered the country in late 1978, he went with her. However, he never served as a soldier with Im Chaem before 1979. When Mr. Koppe asked Mr. Yoeuk whether the information given in the excerpt[10] was correct, he denied this and said that he was staying in a refugee camp with Im Chaem instead. When pressed by Mr. Koppe about when he started working as a soldier, Mr. Yoeuk stated that “never did I serve in the army before 1979”. Moreover, according to Mr. Yoeuk, there was no armed clash before 1979 in his area.
Mr. Koppe then turned to another topic, namely Mr. Yoeuk’s role as a chief of economic section of Region 5. Mr. Yoeuk confirmed this and said that he could be seen as the chief of economic section, since he was responsible for distributing rice. He also confirmed that he was appointed to do so in December 1977 or January 1978. However, he denied that he was also responsible for logistics of Region 5, stressing that he was only responsible for distributing rice to the mobile brigades and that other people were responsible for the entire sector. Mr. Yoeuk affirmed that he told DC-Cam investigators he had taken part in logistics[11], because he was appointed to supply rice to the mobile brigades. Since there were thousands of workers in the mobile units, they had to carry thousands of bags of rice. With regards to warehouses where rice was stored, the witness could not shed much light on the location of these warehouses in the sector, stating that he was only responsible for the sector mobile brigades and requested rice from the district. The rice for these forces was kept in a warehouse attached to the Trapeang Thma worksite. He never heard anything about enemies within the Northwest Zone stealing and hiding rice.
At this point, International Co-Prosecutor Nicholas Koumjian interjected, saying that Mr. Yoeuk was not chief of the economic section, but only responsible for the mobile brigade. After a short discussion, Mr. Koppe moved on to ask the witness whether he was appointed chief of economic section of Region 5. Mr. Yoeuk denied this, reiterating that he was responsible for the distribution of rice to mobile brigades only. Asked about a plan to collect armed forces to “crush the revolution”, Mr. Yoeuk responded that he had not heard of this.
Taking over from his colleague, Co-Counsel for Khieu Samphan Arthur Vercken started his line of questioning by remarking that he had been surprised to hear repeatedly that the witness did not know the reason for his demotion. Mr. Vercken asserted that almost everyone knew the reason why someone was demoted or punished. To this, Mr. Yoeuk responded that to his understanding, if they were related to the former officials of Lon Nol regime, this was enough for them to be removed. He heard from others that he was seen as the son of a deputy chief or a chief of the village.
Mr. Vercken then concluded his questioning by turning back to the testimony given by Mr. Yoeuk last Thursday about the situation of children at the worksite. There, Mr. Yoeuk had testified that children were working at his worksite. This testimony, according to Mr. Vercken, seemed to contradict another witness’s statement of August 12, 2015, who stated that there were no children in the mobile unit. Mr. Yoeuk clarified this issue by stating that these children were not young children, but adolescents or teenagers of an age between thirteen and fifteen or sixteen.
At this point, National Co-Lawyer for Khieu Samphan Kong Sam Onn took the floor and directed the questioning to the witness’s relation to militia units. Mr. Yoeuk testified that some residents were assigned to monitor other villagers. He was also assigned to monitor, but never made any report and was then removed from the position.
Mr. Yoeuk said in his interview that he never met Yeay Chaem in person between 1975 an 1979. He confirmed this in yesterday’s testimony and said that he knew she was a member of the District Committee, but since he was a member of the mobile unit at the time, he did not know any details. Further, Yeay Chaem “had nothing to do with Trapeang Thma construction site”, and he did not know any plans that she would have had for the construction site. Asked about Ta Rin, Mr. Yoeuk said that he was one of the cadres from the Southwest Zone.
At this point, the president thanked Mr. Yoeuk for spending valuable time as a witness and dismissed him. He adjourned the hearing for lunch and announced that a new Co-Investigating Judge would be sworn in at 1pm, after which the new witness 2-TCW-828 would be heard.
Testimony of Chhum Seng: purges of Sector 5
After the morning adjournment, the testimony of witness Chhum Seng began. The president advised the witness about his rights and obligations, including the obligation to respond to questions and the right to stay silent in case of self-incrimination. Previously, the witness had provided two interviews to the OCIJ. He confirmed that the record of the interviews was appropriate in general, but could not recall everything that he had stated there.
The chamber first gave the floor to the National Deputy Co-Prosecutor Srea Rattanak, who started his line of questioning by first asking where the witness was situated between 17 April 1975 and 7 January 1979, and what he assigned to do during this time period. Mr. Seng stated that he worked at Kambo and Sreh in a mobile unit, before being moved from Sreh to Preah Net Preah, when the construction of the dam in Sreh was completed. After this, he was assigned to work at a cotton field.
Mr. Rattanak stressed that the questions would only concern Mr. Seng’s time at Trapeang Thma Dam. When asked where Trapeang Thma Dam construction site was located, the witness responded that it was in Banteay Meanchey province. He was assigned to work there from 1976 until 1979. When asked to clarify the year, he corrected himself and stated that he started working there in mid-1977. The construction had already started when the witness arrived at the place. To his observation, there were workers in the mobile units at the cooperative levels and the sector levels, mounting to a total of ten thousands of workers. The workers were from Preah Net Preah District and Thmao Pouh district.
When he first arrived, members of his unit were assigned to carry water in order to mix cement and build Bridge 1. Later, when rock and cement supplies were running low, they were assigned to carry soil. According to Mr. Seng, they were divided into units and battalions. The members of battalions were assigned to dig and carry earth to build a dam. They had to follow the assignment of Angkar, which corresponded to one to two cubic meters of soil per day. He was assigned as a chief of a company. Mr. Rattanak then moved on to ask whether they were able to finish the work quotas, to which Mr. Seng responded that they had to accomplish the quota per day regardless of their rank. Those who could not accomplish the quota would be deprived of food.
Mr. Rattanak sought further clarification about punishment in case of non-fulfillment of the quota. To this, the witness replied that he was in charge of three platoons and received reports from the chiefs of platoons, through which he would know whether the quotas were fulfilled. Pressed on the issue of food deprivation as punishment, Mr. Seng then stated that “because of human feelings, they would still get their food.” Those who had to work late to fulfill their quota would receive their food later. Sometimes, work would start at 4 or 5am. When Mr. Rattanak sought clarification about how often this would occur, the witness said that this did not happen regularly. However, according to the witness, workers would have to work over night sometimes. Workers would sometimes have to work at night for one week or more. Further, they would have time to rest while having meal, before going back to work.
When Mr. Rattanak asked whether it was therefore correct that sometimes people had to work twenty-four hours a day for seven days a week, Mr. Koppe intervened, stating that the witness had never mentioned twenty-four hour shifts. National Deputy Co-Prosecutor Rattanak responded by saying that this might have gotten lost in translation, but asked Mr. Seng to clarify after Khieu Samphan Defense Co-Lawyer Kong Sam Onn suggested that the matter was not entirely clear.
Mr. Rattanak referred to the statement where Mr. Seng said that they had to work until the morning for one week. The witness clarified that sometimes they would work “around the clock”, but if they were able to complete the assignment earlier, they would be able to have breaks earlier. Pressed on the issue whether workers had to work twenty-four hours without being able to rest and sleep, the witness responded that they could take a two hour break in the morning and in the evening after work, during the time that they received a specific plan. During the offences, according to the witness, they could only break two hours in the morning and two hours at night, unless they finished their assignments earlier. There was only minimal time to rest.
President Nil Nonn advised the Senior Assistant Prosecutor to separate questions according to night or day time, as this would clarify issues. Mr. Rattanak moved on to ask whether workers were allowed to sleep after work. The witness explained that there was a two hour break in the afternoon. Mr. Rattanak then asked whether after this two hour break, they had to work until the morning. The witness responded that when being on offences, they could not take any other rest.
When asked whether there were any protests about these working conditions, Mr. Seng stated that they would express their discontent privately, but did not dare to report to other people or the upper echelon.
Mr. Rattanak then inquired whether food rations were sufficient. To this, the witness replied that there was no sufficient food supply and that although they had more food sometimes, they would mostly have access to watery gruel only. Sometimes they would receive dry fish or salt.
Mr. Rattanak further asked about the quality of the food and whether this was sufficient in relation to labor requirements. The witness answered that they did not have sufficient proteins to finish their work assignments. Mr. Seng stated that there were three units with different food rations:
- The special unit: they were able to dig and carry four to five cubic meters per day and received special food rations: they were given two to three cans of rice;
- The second unit: they had a special food ration of a maximum of two cans of rice per day;
- The third unit: this consisted of those who have problems with their eye sights. They usually received half a can of rice and a maximum one can of rice.
When asked about punishment of those who did not finish their quotas, Mr. Sen stated that “sometimes they starve those people who could not fulfill the quota. That was one form of the punishment.” Rattanak then moved on to ask about food rations during the offences, to which the witness answered that once the Angkar set the food ration at two cans of rice, there would be no amendment to this.
Turning to the issue of hygiene, Mr. Sen testified that the food was not hygienic, and many flies were around there. According to him, “many people were sick”. Further, numerous people were executed based on the accusation of conscious illness. Asked whether there were any measures to kill the flys or means to keep them away from the food, the witness said that there were no measures. As for water supply, there were trucks transporting it to them. During the mealtime, there was sufficient water. However, there was no sufficient water during other breaks. The water was not hygienic, since it was taken directly from the pond. It was not transparent and not clean.
According to Mr. Sen, there were many people who were sick, some of whom were sent to the hospital, which was located at Trapeang Thma pagoda. There was one medical unit attached to each worksite itself. At that time, according to Mr. Sen, medics did not have any qualifications and those people who were sick received only rabbit drop pills as medicine. When asked whether people would recover when going to hospital, the witness stated that very few survived once they became seriously ill.
Taking over from his colleague, International Senior Assistant Prosecutor Vincent De Wilde turned back to the witness’s time before 17 April 1975 to inquire whether the witness served in the Lon Nol army to fight the Khmer Rouge. The witness asserted that he was an ordinary Lon Nol soldier without any rank. Further, Mr. Sen claimed that the Khmer Rouge aimed at destroying all former Lon Nol soldiers by means of having militiamen in the villages. The Khmer Rouge noted down biographies, which some people faked. Most people of those who were arrested were executed, only a few could flee.
Mr. de Wilde then asked whether the witness escaped an arrest himself. Mr. Sen confirmed this and recalled that at the time, his father told him to escape, which is why he escaped from Phnom Lieb and joined another mobile unit.
Mr. de Wilde then turned to the statement of Mr. Sen that there was “a certain degree of tolerance” of Northwest Zone cadres towards former Lon Nol soldiers before the Southwest Zone cadres took control and inquired what this degree of tolerance meant. This prompted Mr. Koppe to interfere and turn back to last week’s discussion about the scope of the trial regarding Lon Nol soldiers. He objected, since this question would be contrary to E315, paragraph 14(c), where the scope of the trial in relation to former Lon Nol officials had been clearly limited to a number of locations.[12] Mr. de Wilde responded by saying that the question aimed at discovering the differences between cadres of the Northwest and the Southwest, and that the question would therefore fall within the framework of events. The Trial Chamber judges conferred, after which the president announced that the objection was overruled, because the question was relevant to the sequence of the events.
When asked about his mobile unit leader, the witness stated that Ta Val was the “principal head”. His company was in charge of 100 members, a platoon consisted of 300 members. This division was arranged by upper Angkar. Mr. De Wilde then asked whether there were other levels above the company, to which the witness replied that Ta Val had overall supervision over the battalion and the level above.
At this point, the president adjourned the hearing for a short break.
Disagreement over questions relating to Lon Nol soldier policy
After the afternoon break, Khieu Samphan Co-Lawyer Arthur Vercken sought for clarification by the chamber of the issue of treatment of former Lon Nol soldiers. Mr. Vercken alleged that the question posed by Mr. de Wilde was outside the scope of the trial and sought for clarification of the decision. Mr. De Wilde answered that, regarding the treatment of Lon Nol soldiers, there are two levels: First, there is the policy. Second, there is the implementation of the policy. To find out whether such a policy existed, two ways of analysis are suitable. On the one hand, one can take a top-down approach and look at the orders given. On the other, one can analyze what happened on the ground, and this is, according to Mr. de Wilde, what the question was aiming at. Mr. Vercken replied that the existence of a policy during the entire regime had already been ruled upon. After the Trial Chamber judges conferred, Judge Jean-Marc Lavergne responded to the objection and recommended reading the decision again, since full explanations can be found there.
International Senior Assistant Prosecutor Vincent de Wilde resumed his line of questioning by inquiring about the age of the workers in the company. The witness responded that the age range was from 18 to over 30 years. Mr. Sen further stated that the only instruction he received at the time was to carry soil and work hard to complete the work. They would report to the upper echelon, but he did not know whether there were intermediate reporters before Ta Val.
Mr. de Wilde then asked whether Mr. Sen was in charge of identifying possible enemies, to which the witness answered that “Angkar asked us to monitor at least one person per day.” Moreover, Angkar also assigned a special force to oversee this surveillance activity.
Turning to the authority structure, Mr. de Wilde continued his line of questioning by asking who the different district chiefs of the Northwest Zone were. Mr. Seng identified Ta Hak as the district committee member of Phnom Srok district, Ta Mong for Preah Net Preah, and could not recall the name for Thmar Puok district.
These cadres were called to attend education sessions, which meant, according to the witness, that they were taken for execution. At the time, Ta Val convened a meeting and made an announcement that Ta Hoeung was in charge of the Sector, while Ta Val was in charge of the mobile units attached to Sector 5. When the Southwest Zone cadres arrived, Ta Hoeung and others were called to attend study sessions. When asked about Ta Rin, Mr. Seng said that Ta Val said that Ta Rin was in charge of Sector 5 as well as Ta Hoeung, but he never met any of them in person. Concerning the purges of these cadres, the witness could not recall the precise date, but estimated that it took place in 1978 when the Southwest Zone cadres took control of the Northwest Zone. At this time, Mr. Sen said, he was already working at the cotton plantation.
Turning to Ta Val’s arrest, Mr. de Wilde inquired how Mr. Sen heard about this. The witness answered that he heard of the name at Sreh, where a man in his unit told him that Ta Val was called by Angkar to be re-educated.
After the arrival of the Southwest Zone cadres, according to Mr. Seng, living and working conditions largely stayed the same. However, surveillance was intensified and the number of arrests increased. Mr. Seng explained this by saying that Southwest Zone cadres mistrusted Northwest Zone cadres from platoon chiefs upwards. The latter were under constant surveillance by the Southwest Zone cadres. Mr. de Wilde then sought clarification on the situation at Trapeang Thma and whether there were commanders who tried to flee or who were purged. Mr. Seng said that at the time, they called Sres and others for meeting. As for the commanders, they only arrested Sres, but a few people under Sres escaped.
Mr. de Wilde then referred to the witness’s statement where he testified that four people had been arrested. He inquired whether these were from the Southwest or Northwest Zone, to which the Mr. Seng responded that Voeun and Thoeun were from the Southwest Zone.
When Mr. de Wilde queried whether there were cadres from the Northwest Zone as part of Sector 5 who tried to resist the purges that were carried out against them, Mr. Koppe intervened and stated that it is not appropriate to use the word “purge” when questioning a witness of Mr. Seng’s rank, since it can only be understood by people whose rank was high enough to understand what this term meant exactly. Instead, the questioning should be very factual and descriptive and the word purge only used in very concrete, well-defined circumstances. Mr. de Wilde answered that the witness himself testified that if people were arrested, they were executed, but subsequently rephrased the question, substituting the word “purge” with “arrests”. Mr. Seng answered denied knowledge about attempts to organize armed resistance against arrests.
Next, Mr. de Wilde asked about Ta Val’s role at Trapeang Thma Dam. Mr. Seng said that there were chiefs of cooperatives and workers at Trapeang Thma worksite that were under the supervision of Ta Val. While Mr. Seng was working at the cotton plantation, Ta Val’s office was close to the Trapeang Thma worksite. Ta Val would visit the worksite “once a month or once in a fortnight”. Moreover, all workers, including the witness, were trying to work as hard as possible whenever they heard Ta Val was at a site. When Ta Val had been sent to re-education, Ta Poal replaced him. According to the witness, they worked the same as when Ta Val was in charge. Asked about his relation to Ta Val, Mr. Seng testified that he was rather close to him, since he was his immediate supervisor. However, he did not meet him very frequently, since he was assigned to work at a far distance. Mr. Seng said that he attended meetings with Ta Val when there was a specific plan that had to be implemented: these meetings were attended by “everyone, including chiefs of companies”.
Returning to the issue of monitoring at least one person per day, Mr. de Wilde inquired whether Ta Val gave these instructions, to which Mr. Seng responded that there was a meeting chaired by Ta Val in which they were instructed to search for intellectuals and former Lon Nol soldiers. This prompted Mr. de Wilde to ask what Ta Val’s instructions were once a person was identified as one of the categories. The witness said that if a company chief reported one particular individual, “that person would be taken away and killed”. When asked whether company chiefs had the possibilities to decide on their own initiative to kill any enemies, Mr. Seng answered that company chiefs could make reports on any person, which would result in the death of that person. This report had to be had to be submitted to Ta Val. However, the witness did not know the actual killers, except that they were working for Angkar. While Mr. Seng was working at the cotton plantation, all of the killers were soldiers.
When Mr. de Wilde pressed on the issue whether the persons executing former Lon Nol soldiers were militiamen or soldiers, Mr. Koppe objected based on the reasoning that this question would clearly relate to the implementation of the policy at Trapeang Thma Dam. To this, Mr. de Wilde replied that it is important to acquire knowledge about the treatment of any enemies, which applies to former Lon Nol soldiers, New People, and other categories. The President overruled the objection, because this question related to the facts of the trial and needs to be answered.
Mr. de Wilde restated his question about who carried out the executions once an “enemy was identified”. Mr. Seng answered that “in that period before the arrival of Southwest Zone cadres, it was soldiers.” Later on, he did not know who carried out the executions. Mr. de Wilde then asked whether there were people executed on the premises of Trapeang Thma Dam worksite. Mr. Seng recounted one occasion where twelve workers were tested whether they had the blindness disease as they stated by lighting a fire and making them walk towards it. Those who avoided it were “found out not to have the blindness disease and were taken away and killed.” One person could not avoid the fire and was spared his life, the other eleven were taken away and killed according to Mr. Seng. The witness could not recall any other test that was carried out to determine whether people suffered a form night blindness.
Asked about Ta Val’s loyalty to the party, Mr. Seng stated that he could not see the degree of his loyalty other than that Ta Val said in his speech that he was loyal to the party. Concerning Ta Val’s strictness, Mr. Seng testified that if one followed Ta Val’s instructions, one could survive, but “if one opposed his instructions, this person would be killed.”
Turning back to the issue of monitoring one person per day, Mr. de Wilde asked who attended the meetings where these instructions were given. The witness said that the instructions were given to company chiefs and chiefs of battalions. Questioned about whether unit chiefs were punished because they identified enemies, Mr. Seng said that there was no punishment. In contrary, if they made a report that “some individuals were capitalists and the report was sent to the upper echelon, the upper echelon would say it was a good report.”
Mr. de Wilde then moved on to ask whether there were other cases of executions or disappearances at Trapeang Thma Dam apart from the eleven mentioned earlier. At this point, Mr. Koppe objected, stating that it had not been established that the executions actually took place at Trapeang Thma Dam. Khieu Samphan Defense Counsel Kong Sam Onn supported this argument by saying that this question concerned speculations about the killings. Mr. de Wilde continued by asking the witness whether he saw anyone being executed at the worksite. Mr. Seng responded that these eleven people were killed at the bottom of the dam. He did not witness the killing itself, but participate in the flattening of the land after the soil was used to cover the bodies. With this, the hearing came to an end and the president thanked the witness for his presence and dismissed him.
President Nil Nonn adjourned the hearing for the day at 4pm. Hearings will resume on August 18th, 2015 at 9 am with the continued testimony of Mr. Chhum Seng.
[1] The relevant document is E3/9008, at ERN 00731123-24 (EN), 002728796-97 (KH). [2] The relevant document is E3/9008, at ERN 00731124 (EN), 002728797 (KH). [3] The relevant document is E3/9008, at ERN 00731135 (EN), 01123729-30 (FR). [4] The relevant document is E3/9008 at ERN 00731140 (ENG), 00728823-24 (KH). [5] The relevant document is E3/9076, at 00731170 (ENG, 00728868 (KH). [6] Mr. Koppe corrected this later, providing the document number of the Written Record of Interview, which was: E319/19.3.18, Questions 48-5, 01044804 (ENG), 01003885 (KH). [7] E3/9076, at 00731170 (ENG), 00728868 (KH) [8] E3/9076, at ERN 00731172 (ENG), 00728870 (KH). [9] The witness is 2-TCW-918 and the corresponding document E3/9094, at 00728683 (ENG), 00734089 (KH), 01123644 (FR). [10] E3/9008, at ERN 00731145 (ENG), 00728832/83 (KH), 01123738 (FR). [11] E3/9008, at ERN 00731139(ENG), 01123732 (FR), 00728822 (KH): [12] These are Tram Kok, the 1st January Dam, S-21 and Kraing Ta Chang.