“Mr. Civil Party, are you afraid to testify?”- Defense Counsel asks
In today’s session at the ECCC, Civil Party Sos Ponyamin continued his testimony and clarified matters related to the Cham rebellion. Witness Seng Khuy provided insight into the treatment of Cham in his village and told the Court about the arrest of around ten Cham people in his village.
Resistance of the Cham
At the beginning of today’s session, the Trial Chamber Greffier confirmed the presence of all parties with Nuon Chea participating from the holding cell.
Deputy Co-Prosecutor Dale Lysak started his line of questioning of Mr. Sos Ponyamin. Mr. Lysak asked whether Dambe – the area where the Civil Party had been relocated to – was a region with a high risk area for malaria, which the Civil Party confirmed. They did not receive mosquito nets when having to sleep under the houses of the Khmer people.
When Mr. Lysak asked whether people asked of malaria or from lack of food, Mr. Koppe objected. He stated that the Civil Party could not determine whether the region carried a high risk for malaria and whether someone died from malaria. The objection was overruled.
Mr. Ponyamin replied that there were many people who died and that only seven Cham families remained. Asked how he received this information, he stated that he was living there and buried some.
Turning to the practice of religion, Mr. Lysak read an excerpt of the statement of the Civil Party’s brother’s.[1] His brother had mentioned a meeting where it was announced that they were no longer allowed to pray. Mr. Lysak asked whether he remembered such a meeting and whether Mr. Ponyamin was present. Mr. Ponyamin stated that he was not there, since he was assigned to work elsewhere at the time.
Mr. Lysak then turned to the topic of the killing of East Zone cadres and read out an excerpt of the Civil Party’s statement.[2] Mr. Lysak asked to clarify whether he saw the cadres being taken into the jungle, or whether he also saw corpses. “I personally saw those corpses and even recognized some, namely Hob.” He was tending water buffalos when he saw the bodies. He said that he saw one dead body, but he saw two pits. “The stench was strong.” Mr. Lysak then read an excerpt of the Civil Party’s statement and asked why he said that East Zone cadres were cruel people who imposed harsh measures.
Mr. Koppe objected to the question, since it had been forbidden by the chamber to first read out an excerpt and then ask a question without having asked an open question before. Mr. Lysak replied that the practice had not been abolished. He was asking follow-up questions. The objection was overruled, since the question put forward by the Co-Prosecution was not forbidden. Mr. Lysak had not asked to confirm what had been said in the statement.
Mr. Ponyamin replied that the killing intensified when the new cadres arrived.
Mr. Lysak then asked how Mr. Ponyamin knew that the Central Zone cadres killed East Zone people. Mr. Ponyamin replied that he knew it, because he had been living there.
At this point, Defense Counsel turned back to the objections that had been posed yesterday. First, Mr. Koppe gave the sources for the 28 Khmer Rouge cadres that are said to have been killed.[3] Second, as regards the question about different uniforms which were worn by soldiers, the Human Rights Watch Report referred to Ysa Osman’s book ‘The Cham Rebellion’.[4] Third, related to Battalion 55 and Hun Sen as a commanding officer, Mr. Koppe referred to one witness, who had been a combatant of Battalion in 55 an had stated that the Cham rebellion was suppressed in Svay Kleang, Trea and Koh Phal by Battalion 55.[5] Mr. Koppe then referred to another part in the interview, where this witness had been asked about Hun Sen’s role.[6]
At this point, Mr. Lysak interjected and stated that the 28 had been killed at a different location. He further stated that the witness had confirmed that Battalion 55 was sent to participate, but that the cadre had identified Sok Sat as the commander of Battalion 55.
Mr. Koppe responded that in the following paragraph of the book, Kiernan was referring to Koh Phal. He then started questioning the Civil Party. Mr. Koppe asked whether he had family in Takeo, Pursat or Kampong Chhnang or Kampot, or whether he knew that there were many Cham living there. Mr. Ponyamin replied that he knew Cham families were living in different provinces.
Mr. Koppe then asked whether it was correct that many Cham “joined the struggle against Lon Nol”, to which Mr. Ponyamin answered that “when we are needed by the country, we will join and help.” He then referred to the regime that became a genocidal regime. Mr. Koppe asked whether someone named Sos Man was encouraging people to join the revolution. Mr. Ponyamin replied that he did not know that person. When Mr. Koppe asked about the son Mat Ly, Mr. Ponyamin replied that he had heard the name but did not know the person.
Mr. Koppe asked whether the Civil Party had heard of the Eastern Zone Islamic Front, which Mr. Ponyamin denied. Mr. Koppe then inquired whether it was correct that Svay Kleang consisted of five or six villages, which the Civil Party confirmed. Mr. Ponyamin did not know about Cham joining the Khmer Rouge revolution.
Mr. Koppe then asked whether the person Kao that Mr. Ponyamin had mentioned yesterday was appointed by the Khmer Rouge. He was a Cham person. Mr. Koppe then asked whether he was involved in measures to limit the practice of the Cham religion. Mr. Ponyamin stated that “it was the policy or guideline from the Khmer Rouge” The orders that came from above could not be rejected. “Chiefs of villages had no choices. They did not execute people. They were only in charge of leading the people.” Mr. Koppe further queried whether Mr. Ponyamin knew Kao well and spoke to him, which Mr. Ponyamin confirmed. Mr. Koppe asked whether the Civil Party had ever asked Kao why he implemented restrictive measures with regards to religion if he himself was a Cham. Mr. Ponyamin replied that he never asked such a question. He further said that Kao was used by the upper level.
Mr. Koppe asked whether there were other Cham who assisted Kao in his position, which Mr. Ponyamin denied. Mr. Ponyamin confirmed that he was the only Khmer Rouge cadre between 1972 and 1975. Turning back to the person Mat Ly, Mr. Koppe inquired whether Mr. Ponyamin had heard of his position in the National Assembly, which Mr. Ponyamin denied. “I have heard of his name, however I did not know which position he held.”
Mr. Koppe inquired whether the Civil Party knew which district Svay Kleang was part of, to which Mr. Ponyamin replied that it was part of Krouch Chhmar District. He did not know to what entity Krouch Chhmar belonged to.
He knew the village Peam Chileang, since he used to live there at some point. Mr. Koppe asked to clarify whether this included two sub-districts of Krouch Chhmar, which Mr. Ponyamin denied. He said that it was not located in Krouch Chhmar.
Mr. Koppe then asked whether the region that Mr. Ponyamin was living in belonged to Sector 21. Mr. Ponyamin replied that he did not know. He said that he did not know about the hierarchical structure in the Khmer Rouge.
Mr. Koppe then said that in July 1975, “Number 2” of Sector 21 was a person called Ouk Bunchhoeun. Mr. Ponyamin had never heard of this name. Mr. Koppe asked whether there was a distinction between soldiers that belonged to the district and those soldiers who belonged to the region or to the upper level. Mr. Ponyamin replied by posing a question himself: “I was not a soldier at that time. I believe there were laws and regulations to manage civilians and soldiers. So how could I know about the structure of soldiers or the military, Mr. Lawyer?”
The President clarified that if the Civil Party did not know something, he should briefly say so. He had no right to put questions to the defense. He would have the opportunity to ask questions to the accused through the President.
Mr. Koppe then said that “I’m a bit surprised that you don’t know. Yesterday you testified extensively that you were involved in a rebellion.” Mr. Koppe asked whether he saw soldiers with different kinds of weapons, uniforms or behaviors. Mr. Ponyamin stated that he did not witness the incidents clearly, since there was a fire exchange and he “had to flee the bullets.”
This prompted Mr. Koppe to read out an excerpt of Yva Osman’s book[7], where the fighting had been described, and asked the Civil Party to react. Mr. Ponyamin replied that he did not know where Yva Osman took that information from. He did not notice the uniforms of the soldiers, since it was dark. “There was no electricity during the Khmer Rouge” Mr. Koppe then asked why the Khmer Rouge came with hundreds of troops to suppress the rebellion. Mr. Ponyamin said that he had “difficulties responding to your questions.” There was a rebellion, and this is why the troops came in.
Mr. Koppe asked whether it was correct that there was more firepower than “just one Kalashnikov and carbine” as a reason for the Khmer Rouge to came into the region. Mr. Ponyamin replied that the Khmer Rouge had to bring in weapons, since they did not have any there except a few rifles.
Mr. Koppe said that “maybe 500 Cham were killed by the Khmer Rouge” after the rebellion, to which Mr. Ponyamin replied that the number was “about right”, but that he could not give the specific number. Mr. Ponyamin did not know the number of weapons or artillery. The fighting lasted for three days. This prompted Mr. Koppe to read out an excerpt of a book by Ben Kiernan.[8] In this extract the killing of hundreds of Cham by Khmer Rouge following a rebellion was described.
Mr. Lysak objected to this question on the basis that the location in the excerpt was not identified as being related to Svay Kleang. Mr. Koppe replied that “we’re talking about mass atrocities” that might have been related to the Prime Minister and the Senator. The part of the book was related to the Cham rebellion in the region. The objection was overruled. Mr. Ponyamin replied that this did not relate to Svay Kleang and that he could therefore not comment on the description. This prompted Mr. Koppe to ask: “Mr. Civil Party, are you afraid to testify?” To this, Mr. Ponyamin replied that he was not afraid, he was telling the truth. “If I was afraid, I would not appear in front of this court.”
Mr. Koppe asked whether the Civil Party knew Trea Village, which Mr. Ponyamin confirmed. He knew that there was a rebellion that took place earlier than the rebellion in his village. This rebellion was suppressed at its early stage.
Mr. Koppe then referred to Ponchaud, quoted by Kiernan, who described the killing of Cham after the rebellion. Mr. Ponyamin stated that he had not heard of this incident.
This prompted Mr. Koppe to ask how Mr. Ponyamin was able to determine that the Central Zone cadres were harsher than the East Zone cadres, as testified earlier today.
Mr. Koppe then asked whether the Civil Party knew someone called Sao Phim, which the Civil Party denied. Mr. Koppe then asked whether Mr. Ponyamin knew who was in charge of the East Zone, which the Civil Party denied as well. He did not know who was responsible for “crushing the rebellion.”
Mr. Koppe inquired whether he was not in fact a ‘Base Person’, instead of a ‘New Person’ as he had testified yesterday, since he was living in a area that had been liberated before 17th April 1975. Mr. Ponyamin replied that after 1975, he was evacuated and therefore also considered a New Person.
Mr. Koppe then asked whether cooperatives were created in his area. Mr. Ponyamin replied that no cooperatives were formed yet in 1973. He could not recall when communal dining was introduced.
At this point, the President adjourned the hearing for a break.
Rebellion at Svay Kleang
After the break, Mr. Lysak clarified that the paragraph in the book by Kiernan which mentioned the 28 Khmer Rouge cadres who were killed referred to an interview that had been admitted to the case file[9] He had three observations regarding this incident: first, the incident described was at Koh Phal and not Svay Kleang. Second, the witness had never lived there. And third, the source did not say anything about soldiers being stabbed.
Mr. Koppe replied: “Very wise words, Mr. Prosecution, that’s what we should be doing more often: using evidence of people who actually see things, something that we actually don’t do at this court.”
At this point, the International Co-Counsel for Khieu Samphan Anta Guissé took the floor.
She started by asking about the Svay Kleang rebellion. She asked whether he confirmed that his brother participated in the rebellion, alongside the Civil Party himself. Mr. Ponyamin stated that this was the case. “Yes, we were together.”
Ms. Guissé then asked whether at the time of the arrest, ‘White Khmer’ were mentioned, which the Civil Party denied. This prompted Ms. Guissé to refer to his brother’s statement,[10] who had stated that everyone connected to the White Khmer would be arrested. Mr. Ponyamin replied that there were accusations of Khmer Sor-, or White Khmer movements, but such a movement did actually not exist.
Moreover, Mr. Ponyamin knew the village chief of Svay Kleang Kao. Ms. Guissé then queried about the Civil Party’s interview with Ysa Osman,[11] in which Mr. Ponyamin had referred to Chhet and Peng Heng. When Ms. Guissé asked whether this refreshed his memory, Mr. Ponyamin confirmed it. He did not know his position.
She then referred to his brother’s interview,[12] who had said that Peng Heng, Chhet, Thol and Saly Mat, chairmen of Village 6 , had “carried out this mission”. They only arrested three Sen Lym, Sos Hym and Tat Ly. She asked whether this refreshed the Civil Party’s memory. He Mr. Ponyamin replied that he may recall Thol, but did not know his position. He did not know about what his older sibling said.
Ms. Guissé then asked whether it was true that there were times that he was not with his brother and that his brother might have seen things that Mr. Ponyamin had not seen. Mr. Ponyamin answered that it was her choice “to accept the statements.”
Ms. Guissé then asked whether the entire village joined them when a few people beat the drum, which Mr. Ponyamin confirmed.
Ms. Guissé then referred to Mr. Ponyamin’s interview,[13] where he had stated that also Village 6 rebelled, which the Civil Party confirmed. Today, the two villages have been combined together. Ms. Guissé then asked whether he consulted with villagers from Village 6 for the rebellion, which Mr. Ponyamin confirmed. There was no consultation with people from other villagers.
Ms. Guissé then referred to Ysa Sen’s “Survival stories from the Villagers”,[14] where the person that Ysa Sen had inteviewed had stated that there were secret meetings in other villages in Krouch Chhmar. Ms. Guissé asked whether he had been aware of meetings that took place in other villages, which Mr. Ponyamin denied. Ms. Guissé then asked whether he was aware of other rebellions in villages other than Village 5 and Village 6. Mr. Ponyamin replied that all he knew there were rebellions in Koh Phal, Svay Kleang and Trea. Koh Phal’s rebellion took place around 15 days before Svay Kleang’s rebellion. The rebellion took place at the end of the Ramadan period.
He could not remember how many Khmer Rouge cadres got killed. This prompted Ms. Guissé to refer to his brother’s account,[15] who had said that Khmer Rouge soldiers were stabbed to death. Mr. Ponyamin could still not shed light on the matter.
The President instructed the Civil Party to respect the rules of the court and to simply answer that he did not know if he could not answer a question.
Ms. Guissé then referred to Mr. Ponyamin’s interview,[16] where he had stated that they received two weapons from a Khmer Rouge that they had stabbed to death. Ms. Guissé asked whether he remembered who was stabbed to death. Mr. Ponyamin stated that hewas not there when he was struck to death.
Ms. Guissé then asked to clarify whether it was true that he did not know whether there were district- or military soldiers, which the Civil Party could not answer. Again, the President interjected and stated that if Mr. Ponyamin did not know the answer to a question, he simply should say so. “I don’t think it is that complicated.”
Next, Ms. Guissé referred back to the account of Mr. Ponyamin’s brother[17]who was able to tell where soldiers came from. Mr. Ponyamin replied that he did not recognize the soldiers. His older brother might have known the soldiers, but he did not. Asked about the “ring leaders” of rebellion in his village, Mr. Ponyamin replied that it was difficult to understand the word “ring leader”. “This term that you used […] is rather inappropriate.” Ms. Guissé rephrased her question and asked who led the rebellion in Village 5. Mr. Ponyamin stated that he had already answered that question the day before.
She then referred to his interview[18] and asked whether it was true that he presented himself as one of the leaders in Village 5 and 6, which he confirmed. This prompted Ms. Guissé to read out an excerpt by his brother’s interview where he had mentioned Svay Kleang.[19] Mr. Ponyamin replied that he knew that person. He was in Village 6, as was his brother, while Mr. Ponyamin was in Village 5.
Ms. Guissé then referred to his interview with Yva Osman, in which he had stated that he was travelling between Village 5 and Village six during the rebellion.[20]: This showed, according to Ms. Guissé that there was close cooperation between the two cooperation and whether he was sure that he did not know about the matters of this village. Mr. Ponyamin replied that the fact that he walked between the two villages did not mean that he lived there.
Ms. Guissé then stated that he had answered in his interview that he was positioned at the front lines when the Khmer Rouge encircled the Cham.[21] Mr. Ponyamin replied that he recalled this and that he travelled between the two villages, but was not living there.
Turning to her last question, Ms. Guissé stated that she was not speaking about Village 6 in general terms but only about the day of the rebellion, where he had stated that he was travelling between the two villages. He repeated that he was walking between the two villages and could not give more information. Ms. Guissé handed over the floor to her colleague Kong Sam Onn.
Number of Cham living in Mr. Ponyamin’s Region
Mr. Kong Sam Onn sought clarification in relation to his village and asked when the restructuring of the village occurred. Mr. Ponyamin stated that Svay Kleang was named when the Khmer Rouge took power. In 1973, it was separated into Village 5 and 6.
He then referred to the last page of E3/9139 and asked whether there were only Cham or also Khmer people in Villages 5, 6, and 7. Mr. Ponyamin replied that only Cham lived in Village 5 and 6, while there were also Khmer people in Village 7. Mr. Sam Onn then inquired whether Mr. Ponyamin stood by his statement that in 1973, there were 1242 Cham families in the village.
Mr. Sam Onn then inquired how Mr. Ponyamin obtained the figures after the establishment of the cooperative. Mr. Ponyamin replied that he received the figures of the cooperatives. Everybody knew that each cooperative consisted of 50 families – every cooperative chief could give this information. He could not recall the names who told him this figure.
Asked about how many cooperatives there were, he replied that in the three villages, there were 1242 families and in each cooperative 50 families. He said “You can do the calculation yourself” He could not remember how many people he asked to obtain this figure. He asked those people who had supervisory roles in the area, such as cooperative chiefs or assistants to village chiefs. Mr. Sam Onn inquired what made it possible to him to put questions to those people. Mr. Ponyamin replied that some of these people were his friends.
After 1979, he had stated that there were only 170 families. Mr. Ponyamin stood by his statement, but stated that it might have been not entirely precise. It could also have been 195 families. During the period after 1979, he was a teacher and an assistant. Thus, he could obtain the information. This figure related to the three villages 5, 6, and 7.
Mr. Sam Onn then turned to the killing of the Khmer Rouge soldiers. He said that he had told Mr. Koppe that he was not aware of the killing. However, he had described the killings.[22] Mr. Ponyamin confirmed that this was correct, but that this was what he had been told. He did not see the dead bodies or what happened, since he was detained at that time.
At this point, the President adjourned the hearing for lunch.
Civil Party Impact Statement
After the morning sessions, the President announced that the Civil Party could make his Civil Party Impact Statement.
Mr. Ponyamin began his statement.
As a Civil Party, after I have told the court of my experience, I am very happy and delighted that the chamber both national and international judges understand about the suffering inflicted upon Cham people. Now, I would like to express my suffering which was done to me and Cham people and also my family members. All of us were harmed and hurt by the Khmer Rouge. Generally speaking, Khmer people have been mistreated by the Khmer Rouge. Not only my family members were mistreated, but also other families were executed and tortured. They endured the suffering; they were killed with the back of a hoe. And some others were dragged into the water and they died. I cannot express everything from my heart. However, I have told the court and I have expressed what I came across during the period. Now, I’m appealing to this Court, the national court and the international court, and also the United Nations to stop the regime from controlling the country once again. All religions, including Buddhism and Islam, were abolished. Buddhism is the religion of the nation. And other religions were abolished in the regime. Buddhism was abolished during the time. Monks were defrocked; pagodas were destroyed, although Buddhism is the national religion in this country. I don’t think I have more to say, because I have never been in this court before.
He then put questions to the accused through the President, “but I am afraid the question would offend the accused.” He then proceeded to put the questions forward. First, he asked: “You two were leaders of the regime. You made people undergo suffering. People were executed and killed. So what was the purpose of the regime?” Second, “why were all religions abolished, including my religion, the Islamic religion? We Cham people were persecuted on a permanent basis during that time.”
The President informed the Civil Party that the two accused maintained their position to exercise their right to remain silent. Thus, the Chamber could not force the accused to answer the questions. With this, the testimony of Civil Party Sos Ponyamin came to an end. The President thanked and dismissed him.
A New Witness: Seng Khuy
Witness Seng Khuy (2-TCW-832) was born February 5 1954 in Angkor Ban Village, Angkor Bhan district, Kampong Cham Province, where he is also currently residing. He had seven children with his previous wife. He had been interviewed twice by the Investigative Judges, once in August 2008 and once in 2011. The President then gave the floor to the Co-Prosecutors.
Assistant Prosecutor Joseph Andrew Boyle started his questioning by asking whether he had lived at the moment that the Khmer Rouge took power in Angkor Ban Village 2, Angkor Ban Commune, where he had been born. Mr. Khuy confirmed this. The Khmer Rouge took control from 1976 up to 1979. Mr. Boyle asked to clarify whether it was in 1976 that the Khmer Rouge took power. Mr. Khuy stated that from 1975 onwards, New People had been evacuated to his area.
Before the Khmer Rouge era, he was a rice farmer in his village. After the Khmer Rouge came to control his village, he “was a slave among other slaves.” He was assigned to plough rice fields until the end of 1979. The witness is of Khmer nationality and ethnicity.
When the Khmer Rouge took power in 1975, there were Cham people in two villages: Angkor Ban Village 1 and 3. In Angkor Ban Village 2, where he was living, there were no Cham. Angkar Ban Village 1 was adjacent to Angkor Ban 2. Angkor Ban Village 3 also shared borders with Angkor Ban Village 2. There was one common road.
Before the Khmer Rouge took power, he did not have close relationships with the Cham. However, they passed through the villages. The Cham were “fish folks”, while he was a rice farmer. Thus, they were not in close contact. When the Khmer Rouge came to control his area, Mr. Khuy said, Cham people did not practice their religion, “because they were afraid of the Khmer Rouge.” At this moment, Cham people were merged with Khmer people. “They were turned into Khmer people.” The Cham people practices Islam before they took power. There was a mosque in the area. They wore clothes that were distinct from the Khmer clothes. Men wore sarongs, while Cham women wore their long robes. The hid their hair with head scarves. They spoke a different language. They “eat rather differently from Khmer people. In particular, they don’t eat pork at all.”
Evacuation of Cham from Adjacent Villages
Moving to the time after the arrival of the Khmer Rouge, Mr. Boyle asked whether Mr. Khuy saw how Cham were treated in Angkor Ban Villages 1 and 3. The witness stated that most Cham had been evacuated at the time and not many Cham families were living there anymore. From late 1976, 15 to 16 Cham people had been evacuated from elsewhere than Village 1 and 3. Initially, they came in families together with their children. A few months after they arrived in the village, the husbands were transferred elsewhere while the children and wives stayed. The children were five to ten years old. Around three or four male Cham were sent away, because not all families arrived with the husbands.
He knew from the way they dressed and they behaved that they were Cham. When they arrived in the village, they secretly spoke their Cham language. When they arrived in his village, they had to wear the same clothes as Khmer people wore. While they had their communal eating, and based on the number of houses, he would estimate the total number of Khmer and Cham people was between 600 and 700.
During the Khmer Rouge regime, he was assigned to plough the rice field early in the morning. Thus, the only time he saw the Cham was during dinner in the communal halls, where they were not allowed to speak to each other. There was no secret place for the Cham to worship or pray. Their working and living conditions were the same for Khmer and Cham people.
Mr. Khuy did not see any ban on the way the hair was worn. However, he observed that some Cham had their hair cut, while others had their hair long. They spoke the Khmer language with an accent. He did not see anyone impose the restriction on the Cham language. The Cham imposed such an instruction on themselves, since they were afraid of being punished for speaking the Cham language. “Or, if there was such an instruction, I was not aware of it.”
Mr. Khuy witnessed arrests of Cham people in 1977 at around 8 pm. The Cham returned from the rice fields where they ate together. “That very night, the security force came to arrest Cham people.” They arrested all Cham in Village 2. This was the only time he saw Cham people being arrested. The Cham people were not aware of the plan to arrest them. There were women, and male and female children who were arrested. He confirmed that it were between ten and 15 Cham who were arrested.
The security forces that arrested the Cham belonged to the commune. He recalled the name of one of the security personnel: Run. Run was in charge of the communal security forces and had three to four security forces below him and the overall security forces in Angkor Ban commune. “It was not only me who was afraid of him, but also other people. When we saw him coming, everyone was shaking. He was so powerful, and everybody was afraid of him.” He killed people whenever he arrested someone without asking questions. Run came from Angkor Ban Village 7. Prior to him becoming the commune security chief, he was a former Khmer Rouge soldier. He did not know any alias or nickname.
Mr. Boyle then referred to one of the witness’s interviews.[23] In this interview, Mr. Khuy had stated that “I have heard Run referred to as a butcher” After the end of the Khmer Rouge regime, Run was “chopped to death by people at Angkor Ban stream. People were angry with Run, because during Pol Pots time, he was the one who arrested family members.”
Mr. Boyle then turned back to the arrest of Cham people. Mr. Khuy did not know the reason why the Cham people were arrested. When being arrested, their hands were tied to their back. The chief of the Angkor Village ordered the villagers to ride the Cham to a pagoda at 9 pm. The witness himself was not engaged in arresting people, but he was ordered to transport the Cham on an oxcart. He did not dare to refuse the assignment, since he “would have been taken away and killed together with the Cham people.” There were five or six oxcarts to transport the Cham. It took place during the night time. It was dark and he did not count the oxcarts. “I was following the other oxcarts that were in front of me.” They were transferred to Wat O Trakuon pagoda. The chief of the village and the deputy chief of the commune instructed him to transfer the Cham. His name was An/On. An received an order from Run. On was a kind person, “and villagers loved and like this individual.” The distance from the village to that pagoda was around three kilometers. They arrived at the pagoda at late in the evening. There were no security personnel on his oxcart. During the trip, he had to transport one mother and two children. “They sat quietly, and I had to drive the oxcart as fast as I could in order to reach the destination.” The distance of the gate to the compound of the pagoda was around 700 metres. The person who was at the gate of the pagoda told the drivers of the oxcarts that they could go back home after having dropped the Cham people. When the Cham got off the oxcart, they were let to the compound of the pagoda. Since then, he had never seen them again: “not even a single one.”
When Mr. Boyle asked what happened to people who was arrested and sent to Wat O Trakuon pagoda, Mr. Koppe observed that he was not sure whether he understood the “microscopical scope of the questions” and objected to the question based on the argument that the witness had already stated that he did not know what happened to the Cham after having been brought to the pagoda. Mr. Boyle replied that he had asked more generally whether the witness had heard what happened to people when they were brought there. The objection was overruled. When Mr. Boyle repeated the question, the witness replied that he only knew that there were purged but could not give any details.
At this point, the President adjourned the hearing for a break.
Reasons for the Arrests of the Cham
After the break, Mr. Boyle continued his line of questioning. He asked whether he knew that the Cham women and children had done anything to warrant their arrests.
Mr. Koppe objected to this question, saying that this witness had no knowledge of the security forces or any other insider knowledge. Mr. Boyle responded, stating that he had asked he had asked “to [the witness’s] knowledge”. The objection was overruled. Mr. Khuy replied that he did not know about the reasons. “The Cham people who were arrested were innocent people. They strived to work very hard.” He did not witness any other arrests.
Mr. Boyle inquired why Mr. Khuy had made a statement about the intensification of killings in 1977.[24] The witness replied that in other areas, the Khmer Rouge purged on a wide scale. Moreover, some people were relocated from his commune and were never seen again. Mr. Boyle further inquired why the witness had stated that “I believe they did not want Ethnic Cham to live in this village or Cambodia.” Mr. Khuy replied that “they only wanted one pure race. They even killed their own Khmer people, so they would not spare any other ethnicity, including the Cham race.”
Mr. Boyle then turned to his last question, asking how many months after the arrival of the Khmer Rouge the Cham were transferred out of Village 1 and 3. Mr. Khuy replied that he did not know the time when this occurred.
At this point, National Deputy Co-Prosecutor Seng Leang took the floor. He asked to clarify his statement that the Cham were arrested purely on the basis that they were Cham.
Mr. Kong Sam Onn objected to this question, since it was repetitive. The objection was upheld.
Mr. Leang then asked about the authority structure. The district chief was Kan. He was sent from the Southwest. He came to chair a meeting in 1977. He did not know, however, when Khan arrived in the area. The person in charge of Wat O Trakuon was Horn. Horn came together with Kan from the Southwest. The arrest of the Cham people took place “under the reign of Khan and Hon”. Hon was in charge of the security in the district. He knew the pagoda, because his family used to attend religious ceremonies there. He knew that it had been transformed as a Security Center “right after the Khmer Rouge took charge in the area.” With this, Mr. Leang finished his questioning.
Mr. Pich Ang took the floor and sought permission to hand over to lawyer Hong Kim Suon, which was granted. Mr. Kim Suon from Cambodia Defenders Project started his line of questioning by asking whether the witness had lived in Angkor Ban Village 2. Mr. Khuy confirmed this. There were nine villages in Angkor Ban Commune. Village 1 was called Unit 1 under the Khmer Rouge. At the moment, Mr. Khuy is a commune chief. Currently, there are around 400 Cham living in his commune, which was approximately the same before the Khmer Rouge. In Village 1 and 3, no Cham people were living after the fall of the Khmer Rouge regime. The Cham started coming around the year 1982.
During the Khmer Rouge, they were eating together and there was no distinct food for the Cham. Mr. Khuy did not hear the chief force the Cham people to eat pork. However, they had the same food as the Khmer people. He did not know whether Cham people ate pork or not.
He was not informed in advance that they would be assigned to transport Cham. Run was informed about the arrests, but he did not see Run pointing out who was Cham. After the Cham had been arrested, “the village chief scolded the Cham that they betrayed Angkar”. When Mr. Suon asked whether they were tied when being arrested, Defense Counsel objected on the basis that it was a repetitive question. The objection was overruled and the witness instructed to answer the question. The witness replied that their hands were tied with a nylon string. The Cham people were not blindfolded. They were not beaten, but pushed onto the oxcarts. When arriving at Wat O Trakuon, the older people got off the oxcart by themselves, whereas the drivers helped the smaller children to leave the oxcart.
The person who received the Cham people was not known to Khuy. As for the husbands, the witness had never seen them again.
During the flooding season, there were corpses floating in the river. He heard from others that there were killings at other places. As for arrests of Khmer people, there were New People who were evacuated from Phnom Penh. These people disappeared sometimes. New People did not make any mistakes and worked very hard with the Base People.
Mr. Kim Huon then asked about other persons in charge of the community. Mr. Khuy answered that he had heard of Tan and Sreng as part of the sector committee. He did not know them personally. He heard that Tang and Sreng held a position when Kan was district chief. He did not know the number of the Sector. He was in a committee and heard that around 20,000 were killed at Wat O Trakuon. He saw the remaining bones at the Wat O Trakuon pagoda.
At this point, the President adjourned the hearing. It will resume tomorrow September 10 2015, at 9 am.
[1] E3/7675 00221853 (KH), 00293924-25 (FR) 00221859 (ENG) [2]E3/5210 00218572 (KH), 00242073 (ENG), 00334652 (FR) [3] Kiernan, p. 264; 00678636 (ENG), 00637770 (KH) 00639033 (FR). [4] Ysa Osman, English p. 84, the corresponding document is E3/5263, at 00219145 (ENG), 00221854 (KH), 00293925 (FR). [5] E3/5261 Written Record of Interview , at 00274336 (ENG), 00285329 (FR) [6] E3/5261 , 00274338 (ENG) 00285332 (FR) 00250945 (KH) [7] E3/7675, at 00221859 (ENG) 00221854 (KH), 00293925 (FR); this corresponds to Eng. p. 84 [8] E3/1593, p. 264: 00678636 (ENG) 00639033 (FR) , 00637770 (KH) [9] E3/7531 [10] E3/2653, at 00219145 (ENG), 00904322 (KH), no French translation available. [11] E3/9136, at 01128375 (FR), 00046390 (KH), 01133239 (ENG). [12] E3/2653, at 00219145 (ENG), 00904323 (KH). [13] E3/9136, at 01128378 (FR) 00046394 (KH) 01133242 (ENG) [14] E3/2653, at 00219148 (ENG) , 00904326 (KH), no French translation available. [15] E3/2653, at 00219146 (ENG), 00904323 (KH) [16] E3/9136, at 0112879 (FR) 00046396 (KH) 01133243 (ENG) [17] E3/2653, at 00219145 (ENG) 00904323 (KH); [18] E3/9163, at 001128378 (FR) , 00046394 (KH) 001133242 (ENG) [19] E3/5205 00293921 (FR), 00275163 (ENG), 00221849-50 (KH) [20] 01128378 (FR) , 0046394 (KH) 001133242 (ENG) [21] E3/9163, at 01128378 (FR), 00046394 (KH) 001133242 (ENG) [22]E3/7678, at 00218576 (KH), 00334655 (FR), 00218582 (ENG). [23] E3/5301 00210483 (ENG), 00635169 (KH), 00622401 (FR). [24] E3/5301, at 00210483 (EN), 00635169 (KH), 00622400 (FR).