Witness Testifies About his Fear of Ta Val
In today’s hearing at the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), mobile brigade chief Chhum Seng testified on issues concerning the authority structure and working and living conditions at Trapeang Thma Dam construction worksite.
Witness Chhum Seng absent during first session of the hearing due to health reasons
Today’s hearing opened with Trial Chamber President Nil Nonn informing the parties and the public that witness Chhum Seng was not able to testify due to health issues in the first session. The president announced that the second part of his testimony might continue in the second session at 10.30 am.
Living and Working Conditions at Trapeang Thma
In the second session, the president announced that Chhum Seng would be heard today. Trial Chamber Greffier confirmed that all parties were present with accused person Nuon Chea participating from his holding cell. The floor was first given to the International Co-Prosecutors, who would have one session together with the Co-Lawyers for Civil Parties to finish the questioning of the witness.
First, however, Mr. Vercken announced that he could not find the explanation to yesterday’s questions regarding the acceptance of questions regarding former Lon Nol soldiers in the decision issued earlier this year[1] and could therefore not understand yesterday’s decision. Referring to memo E318 of 13 October 2013, Mr. Vercken stated that if it any issues arise during case 002, this would be discussed on a case by case basis. Mr. de Wilde replied that all issues that relate to Lon Nol troops are relevant, since they are talking about the crimes of political persecution, which falls under the scope of the trial. The closing order of Trapeang Thma Dma also related to the treatment workers at Trapeang Thma worksite and therefore falls, according to Mr. De Wilde, in the scope of the trial. He then requested an additional ten minutes to complete the questioning of the witness. After the Trial Chamber Judges conferred, President Nil Nonn granted the request by Mr. de Wilde. Regarding the remark made by Mr. Vercken, the trial chamber will answer by e-mail in due time.
Mr. de Wilde then resumed his line of questioning regarding the witness’s time at Trapeang Thma Dam and asked when the witness left Trapeang Thma worksite. Mr. Seng answered that he left to the Cotton Plantation five to six months before the Vietnamese Troops came. The witness stated that at that time, the dam was completed to 95% and only bridges 1, 2 and 3 had to be completed. These could not be completed before due to the lack of cement and other material. Moreover, they needed forces to reinforce the plantation of cotton.
Referring back to yesterday’s testimony regarding the number of workers at the site, Mr. de Wilde asked how many people belonged to Sector 5 mobile brigade. The witness said that he only knew the members of his unit, which consisted of three hundred people. He then asked about the special units that contributed to the building of Trapeang Thma dam and who had to monitor the people. The witness replied that these were the cadres from the Northwest Zone and were designated to monitor people. In his company, there was one person designated to monitor, but since he worked as other workers, they did not know that he was monitoring the workers.
Next, Mr. de Wilde asked whether there were people in the company who were discovered and disappeared. The witness answered that two members had disappeared, namely Phon and Rhum. He said that the reasons for their disappearance might have been that they failed to conceal their background. Phon used to be a lieutenant, while Rhum was from a rich family in the previous regime. Mr. de Wilde moved on to ask whether he knew where these people were led to. Mr. Seng stated that they disappeared, but he did not know where to, since they never returned.
Turning back to the topic of arrests and executions, Mr. de Wilde queried about a person mentioned by Mr. Seng in a previous statement, who was a nephew of In Tham. According to Mr. Seng, the nephew, A-Mab, asked the witness where his uncle was. Mr. Seng did not allow him to leave, but A-Mab fled nevertheless. Since he was injured by being shot by Khmer Rouge cadres close to the border with Thailand, he returned to the worksite after a week. Mr. de Wilde then asked about the fate of the A-Mab after his arrival. Mr. Seng responded that he did not report his return and hid him in the company. Mr. de Wilde referred to Mr. Sen’s DC-Cam interview, where he had stated that two persons left and only one of them returned[2] Mr. Seng explained that A-Mab told him that he fled with another person, but this man was shot dead by Khmer Rouge soldiers, so that A-Mab returned alone. Mr. de Wilde further asked whether there were other arrests and executions, to which Mr. Seng answered that there were only two members in his company who disappeared, but he did not know about other companies.
Mr. de Wilde asked Mr. Seng whether he remembered someone being executed because he hid jewelry.[3] He answered that he heard that this person had problems with his eyesight and fell sick one day and had to stay back. Later on, someone told him that the man had passed away. When he went to find out what happened, he saw him dying and other people carry him to be buried. Other people asked Mr. Seng whether he had seen the jewelry, to which the witness had answered that he had not. Those who carried him, however, saw the jewelry. Mr. de Wilde then inquired whether this man died of health reasons or following an arrest and execution. To this, Mr. Seng said that he died because of disease.
Turning to the issuing of orders, Mr. de Wilde asked whether there were orders from the upper echelon concerning what to do with those people who did not follow orders. Mr. Seng answered that the upper echelon made it clear that they had to be executed.
Mr. de Wilde then asked about a special unit of people who were less hard-working than others and who were sent to re-education. The witness confirmed this and said that the chief of this unit was Sres. He explained that there were some protests against Angkar and that those protesters were put under the supervision of Sres at Trapeang Thma Dam worksite. Mr. de Wilde then inquired whether there was anything different in this special unit compared to other units. Mr. Seng replied that the food rations were the same. He stated that there is a proverb that “even a fish dies if it talks too much”. Those who dared to protest against Angkar were all put in the same unit in order to monitor them more easily.
Mr. de Wilde continued his line of questioning by asking whether food rations of mobile brigades in Sector 5 were different from the food rations of workers in the cooperatives. Mr. Seng said that he did not know the living conditions of the people living in the cooperatives, but only about those working at Trapeang Thma worksite. Mr. de Wilde then referred to the witness’s DC-Cam statement[4] where the witness had stated that there was a shortage of food, because they received no assistance from the regional mobile brigade. When asked whether he saw workers from the cooperatives, Mr. Seng replied that he knew the cooperative chief Khan. The members of cooperatives were even skinnier than the ones in mobile brigades.
Referring back to yesterday’s testimony concerning the lack of clean water, Mr de Wilde asked whether Mr. Seng tried to dig wells to receive fresh water. According to Mr. Seng, they assigned people to dig wells in the company, but the workers did not appear and they could only generate a small amount of water, maybe one bucket or two, from a well, which they had to distribute to the people in the unit.
Mr. de Wilde read an excerpt of an issue of the Revolutionary Youth issued for Trapeang Thma Dam, dated July-August 1977[5], where it was stated that “our compatriots were always joyful”. Mr. de Wilde asked whether Mr. Seng agreed to this, which prompted Kong Sam Onn to interject on the basis that the witness already gave a precise timeline when he worked there, which did not correspond to the one indicated in the Revolutionary Youth issue. The president instructed the witness to respond. The witness stated that the working atmosphere was not joyful, since they did not have enough food and were forced to work and were afraid of being killed. Mr. de Wilde then asked whether workers could refuse their assigned work, which the witness denied – anyone who refused would be killed.
Mr. de Wilde finished his questioning by asking whether people were allowed to visit their families. The witness stated that they could not even move from one unit to another one and they did not have any right to make a request to visit home. Mr. de Wilde thanked the witness and gave the floor to International Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer Marie Guiraud
Ms. Guiraud started her line of questioning by asking whether there were any people who were sick in Mr. Sen’s unit. The witness responded that in his unit, people were frequently sick, but not all of them. Ms. Guiraud sought more detail by asking what sicknesses they suffered from. To this, the witness replied that the main issue was malnutrition and the lack of food. Civil Party Lead-Co Lawyer further inquired whether there was any staff to check those people who said they were sick. The witness replied that there was one medical staff in each unit. Every time someone fell sick, he would be prescribed “rabbit dropping pills”.
Ms. Guiraud moved on to ask whether Mr. Seng received any instructions on how to treat those people who were sick by the upper echelon. He answered that those who had serious illnesses would be referred to a hospital in Trapeang Thma Pagoda. Those who were not seriously ill would be prescribed rabbit dropping pills. According to Mr. Seng, the Khmer Rouge were afraid of the imaginary sickness, which was to pretend to be ill. Ms. Guiraud then asked what fate was reserved for those people with imaginary sickness. He replied that if one was actually sick, he or she would be allowed to rest. Otherwise the person had to go to work. Ms. Guiraud inquired who would decide whether these people were really sick or just pretended to be so. To this, the witness answered that it depended on the activities they did. Some people might have said that they were sick and allowed to rest at the sleeping quarter. He stated that after everyone had gone to work, an imaginary sick person might “go out and seek food”. Further, Ms. Guiraud asked whether there was any order to punish those people who pretended to be sick. The witness said that not many people in his company fell sick and that he rarely imposed any punishment on his workers.
Next, Ms. Guiraud referred back to yesterday’s testimony about being instructed to monitor one person per day and asked whether Mr. Seng received orders to report about those people who were sick. He replied that Ta Val instructed cadres monitor workers and search for those “who had a bad background and conducted any activities against Angkar.” Ms. Guiraud sought clarification about what meant this activity against Angkar. The witness replied that there were many activities against Angkar. For example, “no one was allowed to whisper to another at night”. If anyone complained verbally to each other, this could be considered an activity against Angkar. Ms. Guiraud then asked whether being ill was considered an activity against Angkar. The witness replied that if one was really sick, this would not be considered an activity against Angkar. Pressed on about the so-called imaginary sickness, the witness stated that this was considered to be an activity against Angkar, since this person would not try to help the completion of the work and would use resources to obstruct the completion of the work.
Ms. Guiraud further inquired whether people were watched over at night. The witness confirmed this, since there were a few people sleeping close to them “who tried to eavesdrop”. If someone complained and night, this was considered to be an activity against Angkar. Ms. Guiraud asked whether these people were armed, to which the witness answered that he did not know whether they were armed, since it was at night and therefore dark.
Ms. Guiraud then moved on to her last question by asking whether he ever attended wedding ceremonies at Trapeang Thma Dam. The witness answered that he got married together with twenty other couples. However, this did not occur at Trapeang Thma, but in Kang Va Cotton Plantation instead in late 1978. Pressed on whether people got married at Trapeang Thma Dam, the witness replied that people were divided into classes (New People, Base People, 17th April People, and Liberated People). The instruction was that only same class people could get married to each other. Ms. Guiraud asked whether in the witness’s Battalion 1, marriages were organized. Mr. Seng confirmed this. Ms. Guiraud then asked whether the witness personally attended marriages in his unit or battalion. Mr. Seng replied that company chiefs were not allowed to attend the marriages; only Ta Val and other cadres were. She inquired whether he had any function with regard to the choice of the spouse. He replied that if he loved one woman, he had to make the request. If this woman agreed, he was “lucky and could get married”.
The president then gave the floor to national Civil-Party Co-Lawyer Ty Srinna. Ms. Srinna began her questioning by asking about work conditions and whether workers were allowed to ask for rest when weather conditions were bad and there was, for example, a storm. The witness replied that if the rain was not too heavy, they had to work. However, if there was flooding, they would be allowed to rest. Ms. Srinna then asked whether this meant that all workers were required to build the dam in the rainy season. Mr. Seng confirmed this. Ms. Srinna then asked whether he observed anyone “falling down while working”. The witness said that no one collapsed and died at the worksite. However, he witnessed people collapsing and falling down also in his unit.
Turning to her next topic, Civil-Party Co-Lawyer asked whether children were required to work at the worksite. Mr. Seng confirmed this, but said that they were placed in different units. Other children “who were well-built” had to soil of up to one cubic meter. This prompted Ms. Srinna to ask whether children had the same work quota as adults. The witness denied knowledge about this, since his unit was working far away from the children’s unit.
Moving on to the topic of distribution of rice, Ms. Srinna asked whether rice was distributed for the whole group or whether each individual would receive specific amounts of rice. Mr. Seng said each person would receive one can, in particular those who could complete only one cubic meter per day. Those who could complete more could also receive more rice. However, this depended also on whether there was enough rice at the worksite. Ms. Srinna further inquired whether this rule was applied until the end of the regime. Mr. Seng answered that this was the instruction since the beginning and that there was one person responsible for cooking the rice.
Ms. Srinna then asked about purges and in particular whether biographies were made at Trapeang Thma Dam and, if this was the case, whether “traitors were searched for”. The witness replied that in his unit, biographies were not required in his work unit. However, there was one militia assigned to monitor the workers in his unit. Ms. Srinna further inquired whether there was an instruction to search for, for example, CIA agents. Mr. Seng confirmed this and said that those were the targets. Asked those associated with the CIA or UN were arrested, Mr. Seng replied that this had not taken place in his unit, but that he would not be able to know what happened in other units. This prompted Ms. Srinna to ask whether he had information about the disappearances of members from different units. The witness replied that Thoeung disappeared. He knew this, because the unit chiefs discussed this matter. However, he did not know about disappearances of members of units below battalions.
Turning to the topic of the inauguration of Trapeang Thma, the witness stated that he was present at the inauguration. According to Mr. Seng, the speaker at the inauguration said that there was a Chinese delegation present during the ceremony. The witness recalled that the inauguration was held in 1978. Asked again whether this inauguration took place in 1977 or 1978, he restated that from his recollection, it was held in 1978.
Ms. Srinna then asked whether people mentioned Brother Number One or Brother Number Two. Mr. Seng said that he had never heard of these. He further said that he only knew Ta Val very well, who held a speech at this inauguration, but did not know for the rest. Ms. Srinna then asked whether he noticed that senior leaders visited the Dam construction site at any point in time. Mr. Seng answered that at the inauguration, there were Chinese delegations, but that he did not know about any other leaders.
At this point, the president adjourned the hearing for lunch.
Contradictory Information about the Inauguration of Trapeang Thma Dam
After the morning adjournment, President Nil Nonn gave the floor to Judge Claudia Fenz to briefly question the witness, who turned back to the issue of “conscious illness” and inquired who made the decision whether an illness was real or fake. Mr. Seng answered that when there were many workers who were sick, medical staff would check and decide whether someone was really sick. Judge Fenz asked whether these were the same medical staff members who, according to yesterday’s testimony, had no medical expertise, or whether they had any training. The witness responded that “they were all illiterate and not educated”. They decided whether “one had imaginary sickness or a real sickness”. Seeking more detail, Ms. Fenz asked about the exact procedure to determine whether someone was sick. The witness replied that the medical staff had a small bag containing herbs. They would touch the body of the sick and ask questions about the particular illness. After these questions, medicine would be prescribed.
Judge Fenz further asked the witness to give a specific example where the medical staff decided that the illness was faked. The witness replied that in his unit, he did not see anyone who had a fake illness and medical staff never claimed so either. However, this might have been the case in other units. This prompted Judge Fenz to ask about yesterday’s testimony of the same witness, where he said that “many were taken away for executions, because they were accused of conscious illness.” To this, Mr. Seng reiterated that this did not occur in his unit. The witness could not shed much light on further details. Pressed on by Judge Fenz whether he was aware of other cases outside his unit, Mr. Seng stated that he did not know about other units. Judge Fenz stated that the translation of yesterday’s testimony might have to be reviewed.
Following this questioning, Judge Lavergne took the floor and asked whether the situation of workers at Trapeang Thma Dam was different depending on the fact whether they were part of the cooperative mobile units or sector mobile units. Cooperative mobile units, according to his understanding of the testimony, would suffer greatly of malnutrition. In contrast, those who were directly tied to the sector would receive appropriate food rations. The witness replied that those who could fulfill three cubic meters of rice per day would receive two cans of rice per day. This, in combination with other workers’ rice, this was enough. Mr. Lavergne asked whether there was malnutrition in the units that were tied to the sector or districts. Mr. Seng replied that there was no supplementary food, and they suffered from malnutrition. Pressed on, the witness reiterated that there was not enough food for the hard work that they had to conduct. Asked to confirm this, Mr. Seng said that cadres had “a little bit more food than the others.” Other people did not have enough food to eat.
Judge Lavergne then turned to the topic of technicians and asked whether Ta Val ordered to look for people with specific skills to build the dam. To this, Mr. Seng stated that Ta Val conducted a meeting to look for engineers to build the bridges one, two and three, and asked the witness whether there were any engineers in his unit. He heard that Ta Val found technicians from other units, after having told him that workers in his unit were illiterate. Asked about names, Mr. Seng could recall Chhien Then who was an engineer. The construction started based on the engineer’s instructions. Seeking clarification, Judge Lavergne asked whether this technician survived, since the building of the bridges depended on him. Mr. Seng replied that the bridges were not completed, because there was a lack of cement. Thus, engineers were relocated. He did not know whether the engineer survived.
Turning to the issue of the visit of the Chinese delegation, Mr. Lavergne asked whether there were Chinese technicians who visited the dam site or who were there on a permanent basis. Mr. Seng said that there were no sleeping quarters for Chinese Delegations at Trapeang Thma Dam. In 1978, the inauguration started, but the construction was not yet fully completed. Ta Val gave an instruction to “invite the well-built people to welcome the Chinese delegation”. Ta Val introduced three individuals Chinese delegates, but did not introduce other people “with the fair complexion” who were also there. Judge Lavergne asked whether this took place before the arrival of the Southwest Zone cadres and, for example, whether Ros Nhim was present. Mr. Seng replied that he had heard of the name Ros Nhim at the time, but he did not know him personally or whether he was amongst the delegation. Judge Lavergne repeated his question whether this occurred before or after the arrival of the Southwest Zone cadres. Mr. Seng replied that the inauguration was held two or three days later before the Southwest Zone cadres arrived.
Judge Lavergne then proceeded to ask whether there was any kind of machinery at Trapeang Thma, and if yes, whether there was a lot of equipment. Mr. Seng said that during the construction, there was a vehicle to transport the rocks. He noticed that there were earth carrying trucks, rock-carrying trucks and trucks carrying sand. Judge Lavergne then queried whether he knew the origin of these vehicles. The witness stated that according to his observation, he thought that the vehicles remained from the Lon Nol regime.
At this moment, the president handed over the floor to Nuon Chea Defense Counsel Victor Koppe, who started his line of questioning by returning to Mr. Seng’s relation to Ta Val. He referred to a statement that he “dared to verbally confront him sometimes”[6], and asked what he meant with this. Mr. Seng replied that at the time, he was close to Ta Val. When Ta Val instructed him with an assignment, he would do so and report to him, and if he was not able to fulfill the assignment, he would reject the assignment. After the completion of a task, he would “tell him the truth”. When asked about Ta Val’s reaction, Mr. Seng said that Ta Val “never used a big voice against me”, but warned him that he had to be cautious with his duties with what he did.
Mr. Koppe then proceeded to ask about the inauguration of the dam. He inquired whether the witness knew Ta Val’s exact words at the inauguration speech. The witness replied that at the time was with him, and he told them that the Chinese delegation was there to inaugurate the construction, and Ta Val reported on the progress made at the dam and the workforce employed. There was also an interpreter, but he did not hear him interpreting. Mr. Koppe then asked how much of the dam was finished when Ta Val spoke to the delegation. Mr. Seng answered that at that time, the work completed to around sixty percent. After the delegation came, the completion time line was about 95%.
Mr. Koppe then read an excerpt of the witness’s DC-Cam statement[7]. When asked whether he recalled this statement, the witness confirmed this. When asked whether Ta Hoeung also spoke, the witness denied this and stated that he only sat nearby the Chinese delegation. Mr. Koppe asked for explanation how Ta Val and Ta Hoeung could have participated in the inauguration, which took place in December 1977, whilst Ta Val and Ta Hoeung had been arrested in June 1977. Confronted with this, Mr. Seng claimed that Ta Val and Ta Hoeung had not been arrested yet. Pressed by Mr. Koppe on this inconsistency, Mr. Seng insisted that the inauguration ceremony was held when Ta Val had not been arrested yet. Only upon the arrival of the Southwest Zone cadres were Ta Val and Ta Hoeung arrested. When confronted with the inconsistency yet another time, the witness stated that this took place more than thirty years ago, and that if he had misstated a time, he would seek apology from the bench. Mr. Koppe pushed further, saying that this is not merely a matter of a mistake in date, but a recollection of events that could not have taken place at all, since the inauguration took place after Ta Val’s and Ta Hoeung’s arrest.
At this point, Mr. de Wilde interjected and suggested asking whether there were several occasions at which the Chinese delegations visited. Mr. Koppe said that it was clear that the Chhim Yong Kuy only visited the site once in December 1977. The president instructed the witness to answer to the question, reminding him that there was both an official visit and an inauguration. Pressed on this issue again, Mr. Seng reasserted that Ta Val delivered a speech at the inauguration and said that it was an official visit and also the inauguration of the worksite. According to Mr. Seng, there was no distinction between the official visit and the inauguration. Mr. Seng said that he only repeated Ta Val’s words.
Moving on and with this turning back to the role of Ta Val, Mr. Koppe asked the witness whether Ta Val was an intellectual. Mr. Seng replied that he did not know whether he was an intellectual, but based on his ability to read his writing, he would assume that he was well-educated. When Ta Val wrote to Mr. Seng, he would write “beloved comrade Seng”. Mr. Koppe then asked whether he ever heard him speaking French, which Mr. Seng denied. “I only saw him drink the whiskey.” Mr. Koppe inquired further that when Ta Hoeung and Ta Val spoke to each other, they would sometimes speak French. To this, Mr. Seng replies that he never heard him speaking French.
Mr. Koppe then moved on to refer to Mr. Seng’s DC-Cam statement, where he had said that if “Ta Val came to the worksite, I would listen to the sound of hurried spates”[8]. The witness confirmed having given this information and stated that Ta Val would oversee the workers at the construction site, and if anyone was not working, he would beat this person. This meant that “we had to keep our ears open all the time and had to be on the alert all the time.”
Mr. Koppe then asked what Mr. Seng meant when stating that “the only mistake of Ta Val was the killing of people.”[9] Mr. Seng explained that Ta Val was the leader of the sector mobile brigade, which meant that without permission from Ta Val to carry out executions, no one would have carried out executions. Mr. Koppe then asked whether when having heard about the arrest of Ta Val, Mr. Seng was happy. Mr. Seng replied that Ta Val often called them for meetings. Study sessions or meetings were used interchangeably. When Ta Val called them for meetings, he would sometimes issue reprimands for them. One time he gave everyone cigarettes, another time he gave a jackfruit. Another time, others reported that they did not have the knives for cutting bushes, and Ta Val advised that if it was too difficult, he would plan to let them cut somewhere else. Mr. Koppe reiterated his question whether Mr. Seng was happy about the arrest of Ta Val.
At this point, Mr. de Wilde objected by saying that it is not very appropriate to ask whether someone is happy about the arrest and execution of another person. Moreover, no link between the arrest and executions had been established. Mr. Koppe stated that he did not refer to the execution but merely the arrest. Nevertheless, he reformulated the question whether Mr. Seng was happy when Ta Val was arrested, to which the witness replied that “once he disappeared, everyone was happy, and people wanted him to be removed. Everyone wished that he were taken away.”
Mr. Koppe further inquired about the reasons of Ta Val’s arrest, since Mr. Seng said that “he was loyal to the party”. Mr. Seng replied that he did not know what Ta Val was actually thinking and whether he was genuinely loyal to the party. Being asked again about the arrest of the cadres, Mr. Seng testified that he did not know the reason for their arrests. However, upon the arrival of Southwest Zone cadres, the cadres of the Northwest Zone disappeared “one after another”. He did not know what happened.
Mr. Koppe moved on to ask for permission to confront Mr. Seng with another witness’s statement[10] about Ta Hoeung and Ta Val, which was granted by the president. Mr. Koppe then asked whether he knew the person. Mr. Seng confirmed this, stating that he knew him well. Mr. Koppe then asked whether this person knew Ta Val also very well, to which the witness responded that they were in different units at the time, so he could not say whether they were close or not. Mr. Koppe proceeded to read an excerpt from the witness about a secret plan to arm mobile units and asked whether this would trigger Mr. Seng’s memory.
Now, Senior Assistant Prosecutor Mr. de Wilde objected to the reading of the excerpt, given that the witness had not been asked about the possibility of the existence of a plan beforehand, it would have been better to ask an open question. Mr. Koppe replied that he had asked whether he knew any possible reasons about Ta Val’s arrest before reading the excerpt. According to Mr. Koppe, this excerpt gave a possible reason and was therefore appropriate to be read to the witness. After the Trial Chamber judges conferred, the president overruled Mr. de Wilde’s objection. When Mr. Koppe restated his question, Judge Lavergne intervened, stating that the term “jog the memory” is not appropriate, since this is another witness’s statement and therefore not Mr. Seng’s memory. Mr. Koppe moved on to reformulate his question, asking for a reaction to the excerpt he read. Mr. Seng answered that he did not know anything about a secret plan.
Mr. Koppe then read an excerpt of the witness’s statement and asked for clarification concerning the first part of the sentence that read “So Nhim and So Phim were hunted”[11] The witness stated that he did not know So Phim. Pressed on this issue, the witness insisted that he did not know the person called So or Ta Phim; moreover, he mentioned Ruos Nhim and not So Nhim. It was suggested to check the Khmer transcript of the statement.
At this point, Mr. Koppe suggested taking a short break. The president followed this and adjourned the hearing.
The Chain of Command at Trapeang Thma Dam
After the break, Mr. Koppe resumed his questioning by turning back to the issue of Sao Phim. Mr. Koppe showed the relevant Khmer pages of the DC-Cam statement to Mr. Seng to ask whether the witness mentioned So Phim to the DC-Cam investigators. The witness replied that he talked about Ros Nhim and that the typing looked more like So Nhim or So Phim, which was not a correct transcription. Mr. Koppe directed Mr. Seng to another sentence in the statement, where he referred to Ta Phim again. The witness responded that he never mentioned Ta Phim.
Mr. Koppe then moved on and stated that he would limit the questioning to Ros Nhim. Mr. Koppe asked what would happen to those people who were sent to Kaun Kleng. The witness stated that he heard from Ta Val that Ta Nhim sent reinforcing forces but then withdrew them. Mr. Koppe then queried whether Ta Val mentioned why Ta Nhim sent two-hundred or three-hundred forces to Kaun Kleng. The witness responded that he only heard that these forces were sent there almost to the destination but then had to be withdrawn.
Mr. Koppe inquired how far Kaun Kleng was from Trapeang Thma Dam. The witness replied that he never measured the distance, but he estimated that it could amount to more than 20km if going straight, but if they had to take a detour, this would have been more than 30 km. When asked whether these forces were armed when they went to Koh Kleng, Mr. Seng responded that he only saw hoes, but no rifles.
Mr. Koppe asked whether they were related to Ta Vith or Ta Srey. The witness replied that he knew Ta Vith, but not Ta Srey. Mr. Koppe then queried whether Ta Vith was Ta Srey’s older brother. The witness confirmed that Ta Sreh and Ta Vith were brothers. Mr. Koppe then corrected his pronunciation.
Mr. Koppe then asked whether the forces that went to Koh Kleng had anything to do with the secret forces that the other witness spoke about. Mr. Seng said that he did not know for sure. He was certain, however, that Ta Val sent him to withdraw forces back. For others, he was not aware of.
Mr. Koppe asked leave to present a document[12] to Mr. Seng, which the president granted. Mr. Seng confirmed that he the witness very well. Mr. Koppe then asked whether this person was also a unit leader supervising hundred people at Trapeang Thma worksite, to which the witness responded that he did not know the other witness’s duties very well, but that he knew that he was in the mobile brigade leadership. Mr. Koppe read an excerpt from this witness statement relating to a plan to “stir up the Northwest Zone” and the arrests of cadres by Southwest Zone cadres. Mr. Koppe then asked about a reaction to this statement. Mr. Seng said that Sreh was arrested in the presence of himself. Thoeun and others fled the military unit, but he did not know where they had gone. He did not know who the targets were for the arrests at the time. This prompted Mr. Koppe to say that it seemed that both witnesses seemed to know the situation well and spoke both about Ta Nhim collaborating in a secret plan to start an armed rebellion. Mr. Koppe then asked whether this sounded familiar. Mr. Seng replied that he did not know about this.
Mr. Koppe then asked whether Mr. Seng had an explanation for his not knowing about these plans, having testified that he had been close to Ta Val. Judge Fenz intervened, stating that it is unhelpful asking witnesses about the reasons for their not knowing something.
Mr. Koppe moved on, turning to the issue of chain of command and asking the reason for why the work at the dam was organized in a military way. Mr Seng responded that it was the initiative by Angkar to organize it in a military way, which also gave the name to the unit. However, he did not know why it was organized in that way. Mr. Koppe then asked how to understand the testimony of Mr. Seng when saying that the chain of command had to be respected. Mr. Seng confirmed that one had to follow the orders issued from above: Ta Val gave orders to Ta Kao, who gave orders to Mr. Seng, who in turn gave orders to his subordinates. Mr. Seng then testified that they had to follow orders. For example, they carried a pistol and had to also use it and shoot anyone who did not follow the instructions. Everyone who was not obeying orders were to be executed. This was the absolute chain of command.
Mr. Koppe asked how the authority to kill as a chief would fit in the chain of command. Mr. Seng then stated that chiefs who knew the background of their members had killed their own members and asserted that he never killed any members of his unit.
Mr. Koppe further queried whether there was a standing order from Ta Val to the unit chiefs. Mr. Seng answered that he himself was the chief of a company and had the right to kill anyone who opposed Angkar. Concerning UN agent and CIA agents as well as American agents, the chief of the units had the right to kill them. Mr. Koppe asked again whether this right derived from an order from Ta Val, which the witness confirmed. Mr. Koppe then asked where Ta Val received his order from to instruct unit leaders to do so. Mr. Seng said that he did not know where Ta Val received his orders from.
Turning back to yesterday’s testimony and how eleven people were executed, Mr. Koppe inquired where bridge number one was located compared to the dam site. Mr. Seng said that the worksite at bridge one was close to the previous worksite. At that area, they had to carry earth so that a bridge could be built. There was a test, where amber was set on fire for twelve people to walk on. Phon was amongst this group and the only one who stepped on it, whilst the other eleven avoided the amber, after which they were taken away by the soldiers. The next day, certain people were assigned to carry earth to cover the bodies. Mr. Seng was not amongst them, but was one of the people who flattened the area where the bodies were covered. Mr. Seng did not know the names of the 11 people, but knew that they were people evacuated from Phnom Penh. When asked which unit they were from, Mr. Seng stated that he was not sure which unit they were in. People who were found sleeping in the “long hall” would be taken away. He did not know who their unit chief was. Mr. Koppe further inquired who gave the orders to execute these people, to which Mr. Seng answered that Ta Val gave this order, since “no one would dare to give such an order.”
Mr. Koppe further asked whether Mr. Seng heard Ta Val giving the order to execute these people. Mr. Seng said that he did not hear the order personally. However, whenever Ta Val convened a meeting, Mr. Seng was there. Mr. Koppe pressed on this issue, asking who it was who told the executioners to kill the people. Mr. Seng stated that he did not know this particular matter and only knew that Ta Val gave the order. Mr. Koppe further inquired whether the witness knew who did the actual killings, which Mr. Seng denied.
Mr. Koppe further asked how the witness knew that there were eleven people that were killed. Mr. Seng replied by recounting the story. The next day in the morning, he flattened the place where the bodies were buried and noticed that there were eleven bodies “which may have been killed the day before.” Mr. Koppe then pressed on asking how the witness knew that these people were the same people as the night before. Mr. Seng answered that he was at the scene when these people were tested and witnessed the incidence, but did not witness the actual killing. Mr. Koppe then asked whether he recognized one of the corpses when flattening the earth, to which the witness replied that he did not know these eleven people who died. Mr Koppe further asked how Mr. Seng concluded that the corpses over which Mr. Seng flattened the earth were the same as the ones who failed the test. Mr. Seng answered that most of the corpses wore no shirts and had only trousers. When he saw these corpses, there were no shirts, and he was covering parts of the bodies.
Mr. Koppe then asked whether he ever spoke to Ta Val about this incident afterwards “in a verbally confronting way”. Mr. Seng answered that although he was close to Ta Val, however “I was afraid of him like a tiger.” Ta Val always called him to assign tasks and he would carry these out. Mr. Koppe further inquired whether his involvement in the execution of the eleven people was a reason for Ta Val’s arrest, to which Mr. Seng answered that he did not know the reason for his arrest. Next, Mr. Koppe asked whether he knew about any other similar events at Trapeang Thma Dam, which Mr. Seng did not. After the killing of the eleven people, he was relocated to work at the cotton plantation at Kang Va. Mr. Seng confirmed that he was four to five months at Trapeang Thma after the arrest of Ta Val to construct bridges. Since there was no cement material or iron bars, he was reassigned to work at the cotton plantation. Mr. Koppe then asked whether he witnessed any similar incidents in these four to five months. Mr. Seng answered that after Ta Val was arrested, he did not witness similar
Ta Nhim and Ta Cheng replaced Ta Val. They were from the Southwest Zone. He stated that he never saw them giving any orders to kill anyone; maybe they did not kill anyone.
At this point, the president adjourned the session. The next hearing will take place on August 19, 2015 at 9am with the continued testimony of Chhum Seng and the reserve witness 2-TCW-908.
[1] The document is E319/9/1. [2] E3/9010 DC Cam interview, at p. 32 in ENG. [3] The relevant document is E3/9010, at p. 33 in English, 56-57 in Khmer. [4] E3/9010, p. 20 in English, and 30-31 in KH, p. 19 in French. [5] E3/771, at ERN 00594053-55 (FR), 00509686-87 (ENG) 00376343-45 (KH) [6] E3/9010, at 00728625 (ENG), 01123591 (FR), 00730786 (KH) [7] E3/9010, at 00728631, 01123597 (FR) 00730797-98 (KH) [8] E3/9010, at 00728629 (ENG 01123594 (FR) 007370973 (KH) [9] E3/9010, at 00728623 (EN) 01123589 (FR) 00730783 (KH), [10] E3/9076, at 00731171 (EN), 00728870-71 (KH) [11]E3/9010, at 00728632 (ENG). [12] E3/7805 0027817-18 00267746 (KH) 00315176-77