Testimony on Cham Genocide Continues

Today’s session in front of the ECCC marked the second day of the segment on the mistreatment and genocide of the Cham people by the Khmer Rouge. After witness It Sen had finished his testimony, Civil Party Sos Ponyamin took the stand. He had been a leader of a rebellion in a village in Kampong Cham.

Clarifications about Personalities

At the beginning of the session, the Trial Chamber Greffier confirmchunted the presence of all parties with Nuon Chea following the proceedings from the holding cell. Then, the testimony of It Sen continued.

Nuon Chea Defense Counsel Victor Koppe took the floor and started his line of questioning by asking about the family of the witness. He asked whether he had family in Kampong Chhnang, Pursat, Takeo or Kampot, which Mr. Sen denied. He knew that there were many Cham in Kampong Chhnang, Takeo, Kampot or Battambang, but he never went there.  The Khmer Rouge took over power in his region in 1973. Mr. Koppe then asked whether Mr. Sen knew someone called Sos Man, which Mr. Sen denied. He asked Mr. Koppe whether he was referring to Sos Man or Sos Mat. Mr. Koppe clarified that he was referring to the father of Mat Ly. Mr. Sen stated that he knew Mat Ly. Mr. Sen replied that Mat Ly worked in the East Zone, but he could not remember the father of Mat Ly. The father did not live in the same village. Mat Ly was in the army with Tok Mat. He could not remember the position Mat Ly held. Mr. Sen confirmed that Mat Ly encouraged people to “join the revolution.” Mat Ly was a Cham.

This prompted Mr. Koppe to ask about the measures taken against Cham, such as cutting the hair, not being allowed to pray, and forbidden to practice of religion in general. Mr. Koppe asked whether Mat Ly was involved. Mr. Sen replied that he did not hear about the prohibition from religion by Mat Ly. “Personally, I did not hear him say anything about the closure of the Islamic religion.” The order came from the upper level to the village chief and the group chief. Mr. Koppe then inquired whether Mat Ly himself was “an upper level.”

At this point, Deputy Co-Prosecutor Dale Lysak interjected and asked the defense counsel to be more specific in his question, since “district chief” could be interpreted as upper echelon by some and as not belonging to the upper echelon by others.

Mr. Koppe rephrased the question. Mr. Sen stated that he did not know his position. “He rarely came to Ampil Village.” Mr. Koppe then asked whether he had ever heard that Mat Ly was appointed to be a member of the Standing Committee in 1976. Mr. Sen confirmed this.

Turning to his next point, Mr. Koppe asked whether Mr. Sen had been arrested and detained at Krouch Chhmar Security Center “after the demonstrations.” Mr. Sen stated that he was indeed detained there, because he had killed a sick cow and was accused of having killed a healthy one. Asked about his treatment, Mr. Sen stated that he was not beaten, but he saw many people tortured in the building behind the house.

Asked whether the Security Center belonged to the district or the sector, Mr. Sen stated that it belonged to Krouch Chhmar District. He then described the Security Center and the area. Mr. Koppe then asked whether Krouch Chhmar was part of Sector 21, to which Mr. Sen replied “yes, I think so.” He did not know who the chief of this Sector was. Mr. Koppe asked whether he knew the person Chhan, which Mr. Sen denied. Comrade Seng was responsible for the section. Besides him, he did not know anyone who was in charge. Mr. Koppe asked whether he knew the name Ouk Bunchhoeun, which the witness denied. Mr. Koppe inquired about Kob Sat. Mr. Sen replied that he was a village chief and ordered them to eat pork. He was also a Cham person. He knew that Kob Sat was afraid of the upper echelon and heard that he was arrested and killed later on.

Meng Hoeun worked for the security. “Not long after, he was arrested”. The name Leskasen did not ring a bell.

Mr. Koppe then asked whether he knew of a Cham movement that had the intention to create a Cham state within the state, which Mr. Sen denied. Mr. Koppe then asked whether Mr. Sen had heard of ‘FULRO Champa’. Mr. Sen stated that no one ever said anything like this, because they would be arrested. Judge Lavergne interjected and asked Mr. Koppe to spell the name. Asked for the references, Mr. Koppe referred to another Written Record of Interview.[1]

Mr. Lysak stood up and stated that Mr. Koppe should clarify the time period he was referring to. He further explained that FULRO was “an open political organization, but in the pre-1975 time period”, that started with Cham, and assumed a broader context later.

Mr. Koppe moved on then asked about a second Cham movement called Kabal Sar, which Mr. Sen denied. Mr. Koppe further inquired whether the witness had heard of any rebellious Cham movements in the years 1973-75. Mr. Sen stated that he only heard of Koh Phal rebellion. This prompted Mr. Koppe to ask what “caused the crackdown of the rebellion.” Mr. Sen replied that they were prohibited from praying, worshipping and fasting. This is why “villagers at Koh Phal Village rose up.”  Mr. Koppe asked whether he had heard that 28 cadres had been killed by Cham.

This prompted Mr. Lysak to intervene, stating that Mr. Koppe was leading the witness and should provide references if he used this number. Mr. Koppe rephrased his question and asked the witness whether he had heard of the killing of many cadres by Cham in Koh Phal Village. Asked about his source, he stated that he would give the reference later, but that it was either Kiernan or Ponchaud.

Mr. Sen replied that his in-law had told him about an incident in 1977, where soldiers had been chopped to death. Asked whether it was 1977 or 1975 he was referring to, Mr. Sen replied that it was before 1975, and in 1975 Cham people were evacuated. Mr. Sen recounted that people who had knives and swords were killed by Khmer Rouge cadres. The soldiers who “curbed the rebellion” came from the district. He heard that artillery was put behind Koh Pahl Village. Mr. Koppe asked whether these soldiers were wearing military uniforms and heavy artillery.

Mr. Lysak interjected and stated this question was leading if no references were given. Mr. Koppe disagreed and stated that he was asking a general question. He then proceeded to ask whether the witness remembered any uniforms of the soldiers. Mr. Sen replied that he saw boats and artillery. He did not know what kind of artillery these were.

Mr. Koppe then asked whether Mr. Sen had ever heard of Battalion 55 of the Sector 21 Regiment, to which Mr. Sen replied: “I’m sorry, Counsel, I do not know.”

Mr. Koppe then asked whether Mr. Sen knew the present Prime Minister Hun Sen, which the witness confirmed. “I have heard of that name. But I did not know at that time where he was stationed.” He had only heard that Hun Sen “joined the resistance in the jungle.”

Mr. Koppe then asked whether the witness had heard that Hun Sen was involved in the crackdown of the rebellion together with Battalion 55. This prompted Mr. Lysak to interject, stating that Mr.  Koppe should provide sources, because it would be a leading question otherwise.

After conferring briefly, the bench instructed Mr. Koppe to provide his sources. When Mr. Koppe cited a Human Rights Watch Report[2], Judge Jean-Marc Lavergne indicated that this document had not been accepted on the case file. Mr. Koppe then stated that the information he provided came from Stephen Heder, who had also worked for the Prosecution. Mr. Lysak stated that Stephen Heder had not been at Koh Phal at the time. Thus, the actual sources were needed. Mr. Koppe stated that Stephen Heder was an expert and had been a witness. Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer Marie Guiraud took the floor and stated that this issue was not about the person who provided information, but about a document that had not been admitted. Judge Lavergne gave the references for the decision not to accept the document in the case file.[3]

At this point, Ms. Guissé asked for clarification for the reasons why the Defense had to provide sources for all their questions. Mr. Lysak replied, stating that the reason was that the question was leading without a proper source.

Mr. Koppe rose up stating that “It’s a pathetic and shameful attempt to cut the defense.” The President interrupted him, stating that the defense would be given the opportunity to give their remarks as the last party. Civil Party Lawyer Ty Srinna stated that if Civil Party lawyers had not provided sources in the past, the Defense had been intervening.

Mr. Koppe stated: “On the record, Mr. President, what’s happening here is an attempt to avoid evidence which might incriminate present government members as the perpetrators of the actual genocides, if there were any, in ‘75. So I think it’s perfectly appropriate to find out what happened in ’75.”

Mr. Lysak replied that “I cannot let that be unresponded to. No one here is trying to do that. You are perfectly entitled to pursue that. You need to do that by proper evidentiary means. You cannot just make up things in the courtroom. So feel free to proof that – we have no objection.  You need to do it by proper evidentiary means.” Mr. Koppe answered that “it is Steve Heder who is implying this, and you know him very well.” Mr. Lysak answered: “There is nothing about Steve Heder in the document. He is making that up.”

Judge Claudia Fenz stated that if someone wished to confront a party or put forward allegations, sources needed to be provided. If the source had not admitted, or even specifically rejected as in this case, counsel had find another basis or move on.

Mr. Koppe stated that he had expected this to happen in this court: it was “trying to hide the truth of what really happened.”

Mr. Koppe was instructed by the President to move on, which he did. He asked how many people were killed at Svay Kleang, to which the witness could not give an answer. Mr. Koppe then asked whether it was correct that there was another massacre in Trea Village in 1975. Mr. Lysak stated again that the counsel was leading the Civil Party and that it seemed that Mr. Koppe was “mixing things up.” According to Mr. Lysak, there had been one incidence in Svay Kleang in 1975 and one in Trea in 1978. Mr. Koppe replied: “At least read your sources, Mr. Prosecutor”. He stated that this was Kiernan quoting Ponchaud, who described a massacre “which was executed in pretty much the same way” as the one described in November 1975. Mr. Koppe then read out the excerpt.

Mr. Lysak stated that this was not a description of the same event and a leading question.

Mr. Koppe rephrased his question and asked whether the witness was familiar with a massacre in Trea Village in 1975, which the witness denied. Mr. Sen restated that the massacre took place in 1978, since 1975 “was the year of evacuation”. Mr. Koppe then stated that Ponchaud wrote this article in 1976, which meant that the massacre could be assumed to have taken place in 1975.  After the Co-Prosecution interjected, Mr. Koppe reiterated his standpoint that his question was simply whether the witness knew of any mass atrocities in Trea village in 1975. The witness replied that he did not understand the question.

The President took the opportunity to adjourn the hearing for a break.

 

Evacuations

At the beginning of the second session, the President reminded the parties to formulate short and easy questions. Moreover, he noted that the parties “appear to deliver speeches to the Chamber”. Parties should stick to the rules. He reminded the parties to avoid disparaging speech.

Khieu Samphan team and Nuon Chea Defense Team requested a time extension, since there were around nine or ten objections. The President decided that if the defense teams requested 20 additional minutes, this would be granted if “significant questions” were asked.

Mr. Koppe turned back to the movement from Ampil to Preak Anchy and inquired whether he went there by river or through the forest. Mr. Sen replied that he went by boat first and then by land. Mr. Koppe asked whether the witness could remember how long after the rebellion they arrived at Preak Anchy. To this, Mr. Sen stated that he did not know how long his journey took. After the rebellion, they were woken up at night time and taken to Preak Anchy. Mr. Koppe asked whether Mr. Sen saw any dead bodies or corpses without heads on his way, which Mr. Sen denied. Mr. Koppe inquired whether the witness had heard anything about what had happened in Prea Village just before, upon his arrival in Preak Anchy. Mr. Koppe asked whether it was therefore correct that during his three years in Preak Anchy, he had never heard of any killings at Trea Village. Mr. Sen confirmed this.

Moving to the end of his stay at Preak Anchy, Mr. Koppe stated that the witness had said tht “peace had arrived” and that you “were allowed to Ampil” and whether this was correct. Mr. Sen confirmed this. Preak Anchy was “a rather big village. I did not know how many villagers came to Ampil village and Suoy Village.” Mr. Koppe asked whether the witness knew that any other people could go back to Trea Village. “Yes, villagers from Trea Village were allowed to go and live in Preak Anchy village.” A few villagers were killed a few days after arriving at Preak Anchy Village. They were told that they could go back to their home villages, but did not know where the other villagers went. “

Mr. Koppe asked whether it was correct that he was staying with his older sister Aphea in Ampil Village. He then asked whether there were 20, 30 or 40 families living in Ampil Village, which Mr. Sen confirmed. Mr. Koppe then asked whether it was correct that the witness stayed at Ampil Village for a fortnight, after which they were transferred. Mr. Koppe asked whether the witness had said yesterday that they had to leave Ampil village, because they had not enough food. “I was not given any food rations to eat. I did not have any meal to eat before I was told to return.” Mr. Koppe inquired whether his older sister stayed behind in Ampil village when he and his other family moved to Trea. Mr. Sen replied that his older sister had not been evacuated from Ampil village and that she stayed there until he returned. Mr. Koppe then asked to clarify the term evacuation; according to Mr. Koppe’s understanding of the testimony, Mr. Sen had said that he had decided to go to Trea Village – did this mean that he did not go on his own will?

Mr. Lysak said that the counsel was leading the witness and misstating the testimony, since the witness had never said that he went to Trea Village voluntarily.

Mr. Sen then recounted that after the fortnight village at Ampil, Comrade Seng told them to go to Trea Village. Mr. Koppe inquired why the witness had been instructed to go to Trea Village. Mr. Sen replied that “there were too many villagers” in Ampil Village, where they were consequently not allowed to stay. Thus, the chief ordered them to go to Trea Village. “Do you remember thinking to say ‘well, I can stay with my older sister’?” Mr. Sen replied that he could not stay, since the village chief would not allow this. His older sister did not dare to leave him in her house. Mr. Koppe then asked why they had to go to Trea and not to other villages. Mr. Sen replied that soldiers were living in the whole area of Trea Village. “Trea Village was the place where people got killed.” Asked whether he knew before that they would be killed at Trea Village, Mr. Sen replied that they did not know beforehand and had all their belongings on the oxcarts.

Mr. Koppe went on saying, “I’m trying to understand something”: The witness was instructed to go to Trea where his family was killed, while his sister, who was also Cham, was allowed to stay in Ampil. Mr. Sen replied that this was because his “older sister had been living in Ampil Village for so long.” If people had not been evacuated elsewhere before, they were allowed to stay in Ampil Village. His older sister was living in Ampil Village “and nothing wrong was done to her.” However, she was assigned later on to construct houses. Later on, people kept disappearing.

Mr. Koppe then asked why his direct family was killed, “because they were Cham, as you said”, but nothing happened to the people who stayed at Ampil Village. “Were you unlucky, or what was the reason?” He stated that he did not know why they were considered the “new evacuees” who were not allowed to stay when they returned to their home village. At this point, Mr. Koppe stated that he would still have many questions, but given the time restraints he would give the floor to the Khieu Samphan Defense Team.

Khieu Samphan Defense Counsel Anta Guissé asked who forbade the witness to cross to Koh Phal during the time of the rebellion. Mr. Sen stated that it were the soldiers. “If someone insisted on going, they would be arrested.” He remembered that it was during the rainy season, and some people had to collect grass for the cattle on the boat. However, the soldiers would stop and arrest them. Ms. Guissé asked him to confirm that Ampil and Preak Archy were in the East Zone. Mr. Sen replied that this was the case. “Later on, when the Southwest group arrived, they accused the East Zone cadres of having a Vietnamese head.”

Ms. Guissé then asked whether he knew who was in charge of the East Zone at the time of the revolt, which Mr. Sen denied. He heard about Tok Man, but he was not in his area that often. Tok Man was usually in the rice field areas. He could to recall the name of the commune or district chief. Le and Lov were the chiefs of the village. Ms. Guissé asked who ordered him to go leave Ampil and go to Kratie. He stated that it was the security forces, the village chief, and the commune chief. They said that “the order came through the chain of command” from the upper level. Ms. Guissé asked whether he knew any name of a person in the security force. He recalled the names of Meyng and Horng (still alive today) and Kob Sat, who became the chief “during the time that people were being killed. But around ten days after, he was taken away and killed, too.” Village chiefs were taken away and killed and replaced. Ms. Guissé asked whether he was therefore situating the event in 1978, which the witness confirmed. Ms. Guissé then asked whether Kob Sat was in Koh Phal or Trea. Mr. Sen stated that he was in Ampil. Ms. Guissé then asked whether he therefore knew that he was chief during his 15 days that he spent at Ampil. Ms. Guissé asked about the person Seng that the witness had mentioned on several occasions. Mr. Sen replied that he heard people say that Comrade Seng was on the Krouch Chhmar district committee, in charge of entire district. He stated that when the Southwest Zone cadres came, the East Zone cadres scattered. “This is when the killings started.”

Ms. Guissé then proceeded to refer to his Written Record of Interview, where he had stated that Kok Sat became village chief,[4] the situation deteriorated despite his Cham ethnicity. Mr. Sen stated that the situation intensified from 1978 to 1979. Ms. Guissé asked whether Mr. Sen was certain that Kok Sat was appointed village chief only in 1978, which the witness confirmed. Kok Sat worked there for only a few months. Mr. Sen then stated that he saw Mr. Seng riding his motorbike every day. He instructed soldiers.

 

Movement between Ampil and Trea Village

Ms. Guissé then referred to another part of his interview,[5] there he had stated that Seng was military and commune chief at the same time. Mr. Sen confirmed that what she had read out was correct. He did not know who the village chief of Trea Village was. He saw Comrade Seng riding his motorbike between Trea and Ampil Village.

Ms. Guissé asked whether she understood correctly that they were separated into groups of women and young women in Trea Village, which the witness confirmed. They were separated into a group of single unmarried group, and a group of women with children. They were assembled in a mosque. Ms. Guissé asked whether the women stayed in the mosque when the men were leaving the mosque and were lead to traditional houses. Mr. Sen replied that the women’s group was allowed to stay in front of the mosque. Some wanted to go with the men but were prohibited to do so. He did not know what happened to the women afterwards.

Ms. Guissé then asked about the time when he got to the traditional houses that were on tilts and inquired what the distance was between his house and the next house. Mr. Sen replied that they were around two, three, or four meters away. “You could see through the cracks of the house.”

Ms. Guissé further inquired whether he was able to communicate with the people in houses to the left and to the right, which the witness confirmed. They were not allowed to speak to one another, however. Ms. Guissé then asked – since he had said yesterday he knew there were Cham in the other houses by communicating with them – whether he could actually not communicate with people in other houses. He stated that when being walked from the mosque to the houses, they were able to communicate and ask where they were from.

Ms. Guissé queried whether it was correct that he was not able to talk to them anymore once he arrived at the house. The witness confirmed this. When he fled, it was dark and raining. Ms. Guissé then asked whether it was correct that when he arrived at the pile of clothes he could not see but only feel them. Mr. Sen said this was true.

This prompted to Ms. Guissé to quote from his interview given to Ysa Osman[6]. In this interview he had said that once he arrived at the river side, he saw a pile of clothes. This pile included the clothes of his wife and child, which made him assume that his child and wife were dead. Ms. Guissé asked which version was correct: the one where he saw the clothes or the one where he could only touch them. Mr. Sen answered: “I touched the clothes and the water container. I did not know whose clothes it were. However, I recognized that the container belonged to me, because there was a string tied to it.”

At this point, the President adjourned the hearing for lunch.

 

Detention at Prea Village

After the lunch break, the President gave the floor back to the Khieu Samphan Defense Counsel Anta Guissé.

She took up her next line of questioning by asking whether Mr. Ysa Osman was also present during his OCIJ interview, which the witness confirmed. He had met him once before. Mr. Sen agreed that it was in March 2001. He only saw him once at Ampil Village and once at Ampeah. Asked whether he knew someone called Balzic alias Ho, he denied this.

Turning to her last line of questioning, Ms. Guissé asked whether he knew a person called No Satas, which he did not. Neither did he know Ahmad Sofia. Nor did he know Youssuf Rum Li. With this, she finished her line of questioning and gave the floor to her colleague Kong Sam Onn.

Khieu Samphan Defense Counsel Kong Sam Onn asked whether Mr. Sen held any position with regard to his religion. He then referred back to yesterday’s questioning of the Civil Party lawyer,[7] where he had stated that he did not witness the incident where a woman had been tied to a plank and was killed but he had heard people say that she was beaten and thrown into the pit. Mr. Sam Onn asked to clarify. Mr. Sen said that he was told that there was a big pit close to a wall. People were placed at the pit. At this point, Mr. Sam Onn interrupted the witness and asked whether he witnessed the incident or heard about it. Mr. Sen replied that this was during the time that they were detained.

Mr. Sam Onn then turned to the events at Prea Village. Yesterday the witness had stated that the distance between the house and the river side was around 50 meters. Mr. Sam Onn then asked to describe the house again. “It was a traditional house. It was 11 meters wide and six meters long.” There were two windows at each side. There were doors in the front and the back, and both windows and doors were locked when they arrived. Pressed on this issue, the witness apologized and said that there was only one door in the front. The size of the crack in the wall was around the size of the microphone. Looking at his hand, he stated that it was around the size of the space between two fingers.

There was one large tree near the wall of the house. There were bamboo trees close to the house and near the river bank. There was a pier near the house, where the boat stopped. There were no vegetables, only bamboo trees along the river bank. They were up to three meters high. It was around eight or nine when the soldiers came into the house. The soldiers were tightening the ropes. Some soldiers were relieving themselves near the house. During that time, Mr. Sen was able to untie his rope. The detainees were sitting close to each other in the house. Their hands were tied to a rope. The witness was sitting rather at the back of the house. He was sitting close to the wall on the left side.

When seeing the boats, he was in the house with his hands tied to a rope close to the wall. “I told others to look through the cracks. (…). All of us inside the house could see the boats.” Mr. Sam Onn inquired whether the witness could see the boat clearly, as he had just said that there were bamboo trees. Mr. Sen replied that the bamboo trees were 70 meters away from the pier to the West of the house and therefore did not block the view to the boat.

Pressed on the issue where he was sitting, Mr. Sen reiterated that he was sitting close to the wall. He saw the boat clearly and how 30 people were tied to a rope.

Mr. Sam Onn then asked what month it was that Mr. Sen was able to flee, which the witness could not answer. He could only recall that it was raining. Asked about the “situation of the water”, Mr. Sen replied that the water was not high during the season. During the time, the water was receding. The water flew “really fast.” Mr. Sam Onn then inquired how many kilometers the witness swam when he escaped. Mr. Sen replied that he could not recall the number of kilometers he swam. He left at 12.30 am and arrived at the other side at around 4 am.  He was swimming in the middle of the river. There was an island in the middle of the river near Trea Village.

Mr. Sam Onn referred back to this morning’s testimony[8] and asked how many days the soldiers prepared themselves in advance of the fight. Mr. Sen replied that his elder sibling told him that many soldiers arrived at Koh Pha with boats, but did not know how many days this took. With this, Mr. Sam Onn concluded his questioning and with this the testimony of the witness.

The President thanked the witness and dismissed him. He then ordered to usher Civil Party TCCP-224 into the Courtroom.

 

The Testimony of a New Civil Party: Sos Ponyamin

Sos Ponyamin, born in 1954 in Village five, Svay Kleang commune, Krouch Chhmar district, Kampong Cham province is a rice farmer and father of seven children. The President announced that Rule 91bis of the Internal Rules provided that Mr. Ponyamin would be given the opportunity to make an impact statement at the end of his testimony.

Civil Party lawyer Lor Chunthy from Legal Aid Cambodia started putting questions to the Civil Party. First, he asked where Mr. Ponyamin was before 17^th April 1975 and whether he was forced to leave the village. Before April 1975, he was still living in Svay Kleang Village. After 1975, he was evacuated to Dambae District, Kampong Cham Province. While living in Svay Kleang Village, their religion was respected before April 1975. After the liberation of Phnom Penh, this changed.

Mr. Kong Sam Onn interjected and asked to order the Civil Party to use proper language[9].

Mr. Chunthy answered that the way he spoke was a dialect or slang. The President instructed the Civil Party to show respect and use proper language.

Asked what happened in the first few months when the Khmer Rouge took power, Mr. Ponyamin stated that they were forced to eat pork, were not allowed to fast and respect their religion. The restrictions were also imposed by the hard manual labor compound with small food rations. “that made it very difficult to survive.” The restriction also applied to the Cham language. “The restriction applied to almost every aspect of life.” Women were forced to cut their hair. They were forced to eat food that they would usually not eat. If they refused to eat, it would be said that they refused to give up their religion. “If we opposed any of the principles they imposed, we would be accused of being an enemy of Angkar.” They had their principles and instructions and whenever there were changes, there would be meetings. The corporate of commune chief would impose such regulations. Anyone who violated the regulations, the person would be accused of being an enemy. Thus, “people were tied up and arrested almost every day.” During 20 days tout of 30 days of a month people were arrested. They arrested people at night time and put them on a horse card. Mr. Chunthy then reminded Mr. Ponyamin not to use the word ‘vea’.

Mr. Ponyamin said that it was difficult to not use this language, since the accused were also responsible for the deaths of many people.

When Mr. Chunthy repeated his question, he said that he did not know who those people were who arrested them. He never saw the arrestees again. “Legally speaking, I cannot say that they were taken away and killed, because I did not witness it.” Mr. Chunthy then asked what kinds of people were arrested. Mr. Ponyamin replied that he did not know what kinds of mistakes were made by the people who were arrested. “Some people could not even count from one to ten, but instead they were accused of being a military colonel”. They were sent to the detention center of Krouch Chhmar District. At that stage, around seven “of us” gathered due to the extremely difficult living conditions. “We were thinking if we did not do anything, if we did not revolt, our day would come and we would be taken away and killed.” Since they did not have any weapons, they knew they would be killed anyway. “We did not have any choice.” Ponyamin organized the revolt with two other people. “I learned that 80 people were being arrested. Those people were asked whether they knew about the Holy Qur’an. At night time, there was a plan for their arrest.” The day this occurred was the last day of the Ramadan period. Usually, they were not allowed to celebrate their holidays. On that day, they were allowed to celebrate their holiday. “It was rather strange.” The people did not know that they were being monitored.  His cousin told him that there was a plan to arrest 80 people.

Mr. Chunthy asked how they knew that they wanted to revolt. To Mr. Ponyamin’s understanding, he thought that he would not achieve what he wanted. If he did not revolt, he would be killed. During the time of the revolt, they were able to get hold of the list of 80 people who were supposed to be arrested and burned it. His cousin Mat was also on the list. Pez and he had been arrested at that time. This took place in the night of October 10, 1975. Mr. Chunthy asked where the fighting started and how this happened. “the revolt took place on the 10^th of October 1975 during which I was gathering my uncles Ya Ez, Ya Sa and Ya Maz. I knew during that night that my three uncles would be arrested. Ya Ez, Ya Sa and Ya Maz were siblings. They were accused of being linked to the Lon Nol period. My uncles didn’t even know Phnom Penh at the time. “He was therefore inviting them to his house. He gathered seven people and said that “if we kept silent, we would die.” He collected the drum. The mosque was closed down, and the drum was placed in that mosque. It was around 9 or 10 when he collected the drum. Cham people in other places also went to collect drums. Drums were used to signal. During this night, he said, “if I did not attack or chop the Khmer Rouge, I would be killed afterwards.” He then apologized, because he still used the word “vea” He was in charge of beating the drum.

Everyone came to help. The fire started from that night.

Mr. Chunthy asked what time the Khmer Rouge came to encircle the villagers. He did not know which district the Khmer Rouges were from. There was a fire exchange. He did not know whether the soldiers belonged to the center or any district or commune.

Mr. Chunthy then asked whether people died during that encounter. During the revolt, “many of us died. I cannot tell you how many died. Some died in the bushes.” Mr. Chunthy then inquired what the soldiers did to the villagers after the crackdown of the revolt. Mr. Ponyamin replied that they were all ordered to leave the village. Men were separated from women and children. They were placed in hospitals. The men were put in the place where the medicine was made. Women were placed in a pagoda under a tree. “Torture did happen in those places. We were put in those places for further selection. Forty of us were put into a school or a classroom. We were interrogated and the bayonets were pointed to our necks. We were questioned who started the revolt. [..] the interrogation happened at night time.” After three days of interrogations, three to ten people of us were taken away from each classroom.

He did not know where these people were sent to. The soldiers had hoes and took the people to the jungle. The people who were locked in the classrooms were given a ladle of rice per meal. The meal was cooked in a container. When the meal became less, they took the water from the river and filled it into the container. “I would like to inform the Chamber that I myself also ate grass” to fill his stomach. He ate the leaves during night time when he relieved himself.

Mr. Chunthy then inquired about his close colleagues and whether they were also arrested by the Khmer Rouge at the time. “Srey Sdam was arrested on the second day. Rub Van Man survived the period. He passed away two or three years ago.”

At this point, the President interrupted the questioning and adjourned the hearing for a break.

 

Questioning by the Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyers

After the break, the floor was given to the Lead Co-Lawyers for Civil Parties. The President announced that the Co-Prosecution and Civil Party lawyers would have ten more minutes.

Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer Marie Guiraud took the floor. She asked whether Village 5 was a Cham village, or a village of mixed ethnicity. Mr. Ponyamin replied that there were only Cham living there. He could not recall on what day the Khmer Rouge took power in this village. When Ms. Guiraud asked whether this was long before 1975, such as 1972 or 1973, Mr. Ponyamin recalled that it was in late 1973. Ms. Guiraud then asked whether the village chief was changed when the Khmer Rouge arrived. Mr. Ponyamin replied that the title of the village chief was only used under the Khmer Rouge and not under the Lon Nol period. Ms. Guiraud asked when the Khmer Rouge appointed the village chief, to which Mr. Ponyamin replied that it took place the day the Khmer Rouge arrived in his village.

He recalled that Kao was a village chief. Later on, Kao was taken away and killed. Kao was a Cham person. Before 1975, there were 1242 Cham families living in Village 5. This prompted Ms. Guiraud to ask how he had knowledge of this number. Mr. Ponyamin said that he learned about this information when he was asked to assist the list of people and remembered this statistic. This census occurred in 1974.

Ms. Guiraud then stated that he had said that the 17^th of April marked a changing point in how the Khmer Rouge treated the Cham. She asked whether there were specific measures taken against the Cham before April 1975. Mr. Ponyamin replied that during his testimony he had talked about this already and “it is better for me not to repeat it. I told Lor Chunthy about the living conditions.” Ms. Guiraud asked whether there was a mosque in his village. Mr. Ponyamin replied that before 1975, there were two mosques in Svay Kleang. After the liberation, the Khmer Rouge dismantled the mosque.

Ms. Guiraud turned back to the topic of the rebellion and asked whether he could tell the Court the names of the seven people and whether they had different roles

The other four individuals did not have any specific role and were ordinary civilians. They were 17-18 years old. There were three initiators.

Ms. Guiraud then asked for how many days he was detained in the school, to which he answered that he was there for 29 days. Ms. Guiraud then asked whether he remembered the manner in which the interrogations were carried out. Mr. Ponyamin stated that he could not recall the questions. He could not remember how many people questioned him.

Ms. Guiraud then inquired where he went afterwards. He answered that he was first allowed to return to his family, but was then evacuate to Dambe. They were put onto a boat and had to ride the boat. They had to go in a straight line. If one boat went to the right or to the left, that would be shot.  The boat trip lasted the whole night. They left at 6 pm and arrived at the destination at 12 pm the next day. On each of the seven to ten meters boats, there were around 20 to 30 people. The larger boats could accommodate up to 50 people. All people on the boats were Cham people. During the boat trip, it was raining all night. Some young children and the new borne died. They were not allowed to rest during that boat trip. “We were so exhausted and starving, but we had to row the boat.” Then they had to walk the whole day without food to reach their destination. They were watched over by soldiers who escorted them.

Ms. Guiraud asked whether he witnessed the deaths of the newborns and children with his own eyes. He answered, “of course what I said is what I saw.” He would not be able to tell what happened on other boats.  His family members who went with him included his older sibling Man Sen, his older sister Man Hap So, his younger sister Man Om Na, his younger sibling Mat Sa Ta and his cousing Ko Ly.

When they arrived in Dambe, they were allowed to stay at Svay Kambet in Dambe district and were instructed to live with the Khmer people. He did not have any special role there. “The Khmer Rouge did not pay any attention to me, as I was a young youth at the time. I did not involve in any work for the Khmer Rouge.”

Ms. Guiraud inquired whether he heard about the expressions “New People” and “Base People” then. “We, the Cham people, were considered the “New People.” The people who were living there were considered the “Base People” or “Old People.” The people who were evacuated from Phnom Penh were also considered “New People.”

He lived in Dambe for more than two years and was involved in three evacuations to Suong and other areas. Asked whether he was allowed to practice his religion in Dambe, he denied this. “Everything to do with religion was forbidden. We were not even allowed to speak the Cham language.”

Turning to the next topic, Ms. Guiraud inquired about the living and working conditions at Dambe. Mr. Ponyamin said that he thought living conditions were the same all over the country. Working conditions were very hard. He did not witness any executions, but saw dead bodies “when [he] walked.” While being at Dambe, he witnessed arrests. No Cham people, but only Khmer people were arrested. Khmer Rouge from the center came to the village and East Zone cadres were accused of “having a Vietnamese head.” They were arrested and put on trucks. He lost one younger sibling who died from malaria. He lost seven family members.

When returning to his home village, Khmer people had already been living in his home town. The Khmer people were kind and allowed them to live in their houses. “Upon my arrival in my home town, Khmer people left our houses and we were given back our houses. Some Khmer people even gave us rice to eat.” He learned later on that only 170 families remained in Svay Kleang village. With this, Ms. Guiraud finished her line of questioning.

National Deputy Co-Prosecutor Seng Leang took the floor. Turning back to the topic of detention, Mr. Leang asked how many people were detained.

At this point, Mr. Kong Sam Onn interjected and observed that the Civil Party mentioned Svay Kleang Village and Village 5. He requested the Co-Prosecution to clarify the location. Mr. Leang replied that this had been clarified already.

He could not give an estimate how many people were detained. When Mr. Leang asked how many people were left in the village after they had been detained by the Khmer Rouge, Mr. Koppe interjected, stating that the word Khmer Rouge should not be used in this context and more specific terms like East Zone cadres, forces at the district levels, or forces at the provincial level should be used.

The Chamber decided that it did not prohibit the use of the word Khmer Rouge completely. However, it instructed the Co-Prosecutor to use more specific terms.

Mr. Leang asked the Civil Party who detained them: combatants or militiamen. Mr. Ponyamin replied that he was not able to tell whether these were soldiers from the provincial or district level. Mr. Leang rephrased the question and asked how many people remained after having been detained. Mr. Ponyamin replied that he could not tell how many families remained. Later on, cadres from the Center came to his village and “people started disappearing one after another.” He did not know whether these people were killed or not. Around 170 families remained in his village, and around

Turning to his last question, Mr. Leang asked whether he attended any weddings during the time that he was living in Svay Kleang during the Khmer Rouge period. Mr. Ponyamin replied that he was living in Svay Kambat for two moths only and no wedding took place. Asked when he got married, Mr. Ponyamin stated that he got married at Suong. With this, Mr. Leang finished his questioning and handed over to International Assistant Prosecutor Dale Lysak.

Mr. Lysak asked about the religious leaders in Svay Kleang and whether Mr. Ponyamin was the hakim of the village today. Mr. Ponyamin replied that he was a hakim now and in charge of the district. “In every regime, there are hakims and religious leaders. Before the Khmer Rouge time, there were hakims.” However, hakims “were the first targets of the Khmer Rouge”. Hakims and religious leaders or teachers were arrested in 1974.

Mr. Lysak then inquired what happened to the Qur’ans in Svay Kleang village. Mr. Ponyamin replied that they were prohibited from worshipping and prayers. All Qur’ans had been collected. Qur’ans that he found later were at the village chief’s house.

Returning to the topic of rebellion, Mr. Lysak asked whether the rebellion that took place at Koh Phal occurred before or after the rebellion at Svay Kleang. Mr. Ponyamin replied that Koh Phal rebellion took place 15 days before the rebellion at Svay Kleang. However, “it was Koh Phal business at the time”, and he did not know anything about that rebellion.

Khmer Rouge soldiers were armed with different kind of weapons. The Cham only had two rifles, swords and knives. He could not recall the number clearly. The Khmer Rouge had marines. They did not use boats to fight them, since they were on land. They did not use only light weapons, they also had heavy weapons. “The sounds of gunfire deafened our ears.” He did not know what kind of weapons there were.

Turning to his time at Dambe Village, Mr. Lysak inquired where he was allowed to stay. Mr. Ponyamin said that he was allowed to stay at Svay Kambet. Mr. Lysak asked whether he had an older brother named Man Seyng and whether he was with him when being sent to Svay Kambet. Mr. Ponyamin stated that he was staying with him in the village.

This prompted Mr. Lysak to read out an excerpt of Mr. Ponyamin’s brother, who had stated that some of the Cham people were required to sleep underneath the houses of Khmer families,[10] and asked whether this information was correct. Mr. Ponyamin confirmed this.

At this point, the President interrupted the questioning and decided that the ten to fifteen minutes Mr. Lysak needed would be granted to him for tomorrow morning. The next witness would be TCW-832. The President adjourned the hearing, which will continue tomorrow, September 09 2015, at 9 am.

 

[1] E3/387, at 00350206 (ENG), 00441419 (FR), 00379487 (KH).

[2] E347.3, at 01086027 (ENG), p. 22

[3] E347/1 chapter two: para three, four, five, six, seven, eight,

[4] E3/5195, at 00274718 (FR), 00004429 (KH), 00242095 (ENG).

[5] E3/5195 00274718 (FR), 00004429, 00004430 (KH)

[6] E3/9334, at 00274725 (FR) 00204443 (FR), 00204438 (KH).

[7] September 07 2015, at around 16:03.

[8] At 09.47 am.

[9] The Khmer word vea is used for objects or animals but not human beings.

[10] E3/5205 00221850 (KH) 00275163-64 (ENG) 00293922 (FR)