Featured Image: Witness Sot Sophal (ECCC Flickr)

As part of the Segment on the Treatment of the Cham, Civil Party No Satas continued her testimony in front of the ECCC today. She provided more detail about her arrest and was confronted with alleged discrepancies of the statements she had given in 2000, 2008, 2009 and yesterday.

In the second part of the hearing, witness Sot Sophal took the proceedings back to Trapeang Thma Dam construction worksite and testified about the working and living conditions. He had worked in a Special Children’s Unit at Trapeang Thma Dam.

 

The White Khmer Movement and the Rebellion

At the beginning of the first session, the Trial Chamber Greffier confirmed the presence of all parties, with Nuon Chea following the proceedings from the holding cell.

The floor was granted to the defense team for Nuon Chea to put questions to Civil Party No Satas. Victor Koppe started his line of questioning by inquiring which village number in Svay Khleang she was from. Ms. Satas replied that she did not know the number of the village. Neither did she know the Sector number. Mr. Koppe then inquired whether she knew a man called Man Sen who used to live in Village 5 and possibly still does so. She denied this and said that the name did not sound familiar. She knew Sok and Kim instead. Mr. Koppe then asked whether she knew his wife, who is called El Maz. Man Sen and El Maz have eight children. Ms. Satas said that she did not know this.

Mr. Koppe then referred to excerpts of interviews that Man Sen had given.[1] Man Sen had stated that by 1975 arrests were carried out indiscriminately and that rumors spread that they were accused of being White Khmer. Mr. Koppe asked whether she had heard that arrests were made in connection to the White Khmer movement. She confirmed this and said that people were accused of being part of the White Khmer movement or CIA when they were arrested. She said that this was the reason for the rebellion in Svay Khleang. Her father also participated in the rebellion. “I am telling the Chamber what I saw at the time. This is the truth and this is not a fabrication. I do not lie.” Mr. Koppe asked whether her father had been involved in the White Khmer movement. She answered that “of course he had to involve in the resistance, the rebellion”, since they would have died otherwise. By this time, around 30 or 40 people were arrested every day. Mr. Koppe further stated that Man Sen had also mentioned commune chairmen Ta Long and Ta Yuk. Ms. Satas said that she knew of the name Ta Long, but not Ta Yuk. Ta Long was the former commune chief.

Mr. Koppe then inquired whether it was correct that the rebellion started in 1975 on the day of the religious holiday raya, which Ms. Satas confirmed. She said that at that day, the plan had been to round up all Cham people who went to the mosque. This was the reason for the rebellion. The rebellion was defeated, because the Cham only had knives and swords, while the Khmer Rouge had

Mr. Koppe then asked whether she remembered hearing the drums that were allegedly beaten to spread the rebellion that another witness had mentioned in front of the court. At this point, International Assistant Prosecutor Joseph Andrew Boyle intervened and stated that the question should be phased in an open manner. Next, International Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer Marie Guiraud interjected and stated that she had not heard any witness or civil party referring to beating of drums from one village to another, but only within one village. Should she be mistaken, references should be provided.

Mr. Koppe rephrased his question and asked whether Ms. Satas remembered the beating of the drums during raya. Ms. Satas confirmed this, but said that this took place only in her village and not across other villages. This beating of the drums signaled the start of the rebellion. It warned people to be careful not to be hit by the Khmer Rouge gunfire. The men were fighting, while the women took care of the children by hiding themselves in the area. Asked about Koh Phal or Trea Village, she said that at the time she only knew about the rebellion in her village.

Mr. Koppe asked what exactly she saw. She did not see people firing guns, but saw the bullets. Asked whether she saw Khmer Rouge walking in the village after having defeated the Cham, she replied that she saw the Khmer Rouge rounding up everyone. Then, the Cham were escorted by armed soldiers and were not allowed to leave. When reaching Preah Samraong Bridge, women and men were separated. Women were allowed to stay in a tobacco kiln. The children would stay with the women. The men were detained near the bridge.

Mr. Koppe asked whether she saw Khmer Rouge soldiers, and if she did so whether they were from the district or the zone and what uniforms they were wearing. She replied that there were soldiers from the district and commune level and militia. There were armed forces of various levels. The soldiers wore their blue uniform, while the men who worked at the commune wore black clothes with scarves around their neck.

Mr. Koppe read out an excerpt by Man Sen, who had stated that another kind of soldiers arrived the next morning, who carried different weapons and wore different uniforms. Ms. Satas stated that she could not remember.

Mr. Koppe then referred to the testimony of It Sen, who had said that the Khmer Rouge used heavy artillery that deafened his ears. [2] Mr. Koppe asked whether that jogged her memory. Ms. Satas replied that she heard gunfire and from time to time rockets. The firing of rockets was rather scattered. Her father was hit by a rocket. This prompted Mr. Koppe to ask how she knew that he was hit by a rocket. She replied that he showed and told her. After the fire exchange he came to see her with his family. She could not give an exact figure how many people were injured or died, but said that many people were injured.

Mr. Koppe then asked how many days after his injury, her father was arrested. She said that this took place around half a day later at the Samraong Bridge. Many people were arrested at the time. “There were so many of them that I could not provide you with an exact figure.” She estimated that it might have been 300 or more than this. Only men were arrested, while the women were kept in another place, for example in pagodas or tobacco kilns. They were released after three days. Those who had no ties with the CIA were sent to other places.

Her father was detained in Krouch Chhmar Security Center at first and six months later taken to Preak Anchy. After the Khmer Rouge regime fell, the prison was dismantled.

Mr. Koppe then asked how she knew that her father was sent to another security center after six months. She replied that she did not say six months but gave an estimate. She learned this a year later, because some Khmer people saw him.

Mr. Koppe then wanted to know whether the people his father was detained with at the security center were subsequently also sent to another place. At this point, Assistant Prosecutor Joseph Andrew Boyle intervened and objected to the use of the term security center, since the Civil Party herself had not mentioned this. Mr. Koppe replied that he had heard her say this term and referred to the closing order, which had identified the Krouch Chhmar District Security Center. To put the question more openly, Mr. Koppe asked whether the place her father was detained at was called the Krouch Chhmar District Security Center, which Ms. Satas confirmed. Mr. Koppe further asked whether there was only one such center in Krouch Chhmar at the time, which the Civil Party could not answer. She knew another center in Preak Anchy.

 

Clashes between the White Khmer and the Khmer Rouge in 1978

Mr. Koppe moved on in time and referred to her testimony where she had said that the Southwest Zone cadres were fighting the White Khmer. Ms. Satas said that there were White Khmer and she fled. However, she did not know whether they were indeed White Khmer, but they were fighting. The White Khmer “simply wanted to be free and work in good conditions.”

Asked how she knew White Khmer were fighting, she said that she heard gunfire and people said that they had to flee, because they were on the White Khmer side. She was afraid of being hit.

Mr. Koppe then asked when she was required to build a dam at Chinit, where she had said that she heard the gunfire. She replied that it was around 1976, 1977 or 1978. The Southwest people arrived at the end of the regime, she said. “The bloodiest year was 1977.”

Mr. Koppe asked whether it was correct that the clashes in her Sector took place in May or June, which the Civil Party confirmed. When he asked whether the White Khmer forces that her father fought in 1975 were the same forces that fought with the Khmer Rouge in May or June 1978, Mr. Boyle objected. He reasoned that she had said that her father took place in the rebellion and had not confirmed that her father was part of the White Khmer movement. The question therefore misstated the evidence. The Chamber upheld the objection.

Mr. Koppe asked whether her father himself was a member of the White Khmer movement in 1975. She denied this. “He took part in the rebellion to fight the Khmer Rouge.” According to her, the White Khmer movement took shape only after his death. There were Khmer who told her so. These Khmer “did not have black blood like the Khmer Rouge.

Mr. Koppe then asked whether the forces clashing with the Khmer Rouge in 1978 were the same forces that existed in 1975. When she started her answer, the Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer Pich Ang interjected and stated that the Civil Party had said that the movement took shape only after and not in 1975.”

Mr. Koppe moved on and referred to the corpses she saw floating in the river. She had said that some of these corpses were soldiers. He asked whether this took place around the same time that she heard gunfire fighting between the Southwest Zone forces and the White Khmer. She replied that it was when she was in Khsach Prachheh Leu village. She was detained at Trea village and then released to work at Khsach Prachheh Leu village, where she saw bodies floating. The bodies were tied together. Six months or one year old children were put in bags. She saw Thro, who was working in the youth brigade of the East Zone. His throat had been slit.

Mr. Koppe asked whether this took place in May or June 1978. Ms. Satas confirmed that it was in 1978. She recalled: “I spent one month on the water and two months on the land”, after which the country was liberated.

Mr. Koppe then asked whether she actually witnessed armed clashes in May or June 1978. She denied this, since she was in the forest at the time. They learned what happened by the activities of messengers.

He further referred to an interview with her and her husband, during which her husband had answered that the Cham people on one side of the river were called “Khmer body with a Vietnamese head”.[3] She could not recall this. Mr. Koppe asked whether there was a distinction being made between Cham living on one side of the river and Cham living on the other side of the river. She replied that people who were living in the East Zone were accused of having Khmer bodies with Vietnamese heads and were accused of colluding with the Vietnamese. On the West side of the river, the Cham were considered differently. All her relatives disappeared and never came back.

Mr. Koppe then asked about her Written Record of Interview.[4] In this interview, she had said that she did not witness the executions but had told Ysa Osman that she had witnessed them “to seek justice”. She replied that she did not see the executions, but saw people who were arrested and taken away who were Cham. They sharpened their knives three times a day.

 

Back to the Rebellion in Svay Khleang

At the beginning of the session, President Nil Nonn asked whether the Civil Party could continue her testimony without her duty counsel, who was absent. The floor was then given to Victor Koppe to finish his line of questioning.

Mr. Koppe asked whether she knew Sos Man or his son Mat Ly, which she denied. Mr. Koppe then asked whether there were Cham that she knew had joined the revolution. Ms. Satas confirmed this and said that there were women and men in the East Zone. However, they were not many, maybe around one percent of the Cham. With this, Mr. Koppe finished his examination.

 

International Khieu Samphan Defense Counsel Anta Guissé started her questioning by focusing on the rebellion in 1975 and the beating of drums. She asked whether Ms. Satas knew someone called Sos Ponyamin, which Ms. Satas confirmed. She said that he had been a hakim.

Ms. Guissé said that he had testified on September 8 and September 9 and had spoken about the beating of drums in Village Number 5 in Svay Khleang and asked whether that jogged her memory about the number of the village. Ms. Satas stated that the drums were beaten in Svay Khleang. Pressed on by Ms. Guissé, Ms. Satas stated that Sos Ponyamin indeed spoke about Village 5, but that this did not remind her of her village.

Asked whether Sos Ponyamin had been a leader of the rebellion, Ms. Satas stated that he only said so later. At the time, she did not know his role. In her view, there was no leader of the rebellion at the time.

Ms. Guissé asked whether Lep Vanmath sounded familiar. Ms. Satas replied that she knew him, but he passed away. He had been a partner of Sos Min, the short version for Sos Ponyamin. Since she was only 17 years old at the time, she said she could not remember much.

Ms. Guissé then read out an excerpt of Lep Vanmath’s account.[5] Ms. Guissé asked whether Ms. Satas could remember that her father partook in secret meetings before the rebellion. Ms. Satas was not aware of these meetings, but that her father took his machete at the day of the rebellion.

Ms. Guissé then asked whether Ms. Satas could remember having been interviewed by Ysa Osman together with her husband. Ms. Satas could not recall this.

Ms. Guissé read out an excerpt, in which it had been stated that the arrest in 1975 resulted from a rebellion that had just taken place.

Ms. Satas replied that the arrests started before the rebellion. The rebellion took place because of the successive arrests in 1975. She agreed that her displacement took place after the rebellion.

Ms. Guissé then asked whether the Civil Party could remember what she had said regarding the investigations whether someone was a CIA agent. Ms. Satas replied that her father had been accused of being part of the CIA network.

Ms. Guissé then referred to an interview Ms. Satas had given to Ysa Osman.[6] She had stated that there were inquiries to see who was a CIA agent. Ms. Guissé asked whether Ms. Satas knew who performed these investigations. Ms. Satas replied that it was a secret inquiry conducted by people working for the district or commune level. This prompted Ms. Guissé to ask how Ms. Satas knew about the inquiries, since they were secret. Ms. Satas replied that she heard this in the detention center. Under torture, they would confirm that they were members of the CIA, even if they were innocent. In their confessions, they would implicate other people.

Ms. Guissé asked whether the Civil Party personally saw people being interrogated, or whether this was something she only heard about. Ms. Satas replied that the commune chiefs or district chiefs had said that people were CIA agents. She said that under torture, people would confess, albeit not having been part of the CIA network. Ms. Guissé asked to confirm that Ms. Satas never had personally witnessed interrogations, which Ms. Satas did.

Next, Ms. Guissé referred to yesterday’s testimony, during which Ms. Satas spoke about people who had been arrested and who came back for two to three months before leaving again.[7] Ms. Guissé asked whether she had referred to 1975 or which period she meant. Ms. Satas said that she had never said this. Ms. Guissé read out an excerpt of yesterday’s testimony. This seemed to have triggered Ms. Satas’ memory, who confirmed that it took place in 1975. She recalled that Ha and Tam had committed minor offences and were released. After a month they died of illness. Ms. Guissé inquired whether they went away or whether they died. Ms. Satas said that they became sick in the prison and died afterwards. “The Security Center said that they were good people”, which was why they were released. Ms. Guissé further asked who Ms. Satas had referred to when saying that “they had to leave.” Ms. Satas said that she could not remember having said this.

Next, Ms. Guissé turned to the arrest in 1978. Ms. Guissé asked whether this took place Khsach Prachheh. The Civil Party replied that she and her family were grouped together in Khsach Prachheh Kandal, after which some were sent to Trea.

 

Interrogations at Trea Village

In this interview with Ysa Osman in 2000, Ms. Satas had testified that there were 40 female children who came from Khsach Prachheh to Trea Village. Ta Ho was on the committee[8] Ms. Guissé inquired about the number of people who were arrested. In 2000, she had talked about 40 people, yesterday about 300 and today about 100. Ms. Satas replied that in her group, there were around 40 people. However, there were also others from other areas. The whole number was 200 to 300. The group of 40 people came from Khsach Prachheh Leu. This triggered Ms. Guissé to inquire why she had answered Ysa Osman’s question whether there were other people arrested from other villages, which she had denied back then. Ms. Satas answered that she had been asked about the group of women who had been arrested.

Ms. Guissé asked when the Civil Party saw women coming from other villages. She replied that it was around the same time, 6-7 pm. According to Ms. Satas, the 200 to 300 people who were placed in her house were all women. There was no one in the house when she arrived. Ms. Guissé asked whether the women were assembled before coming to the house. Ms. Satas replied that the gathering point was in Khsach Prachheh Kandal, but the women from other villages arrived. The other women came from other villages.

Asked to describe the location where they were assembled, she replied that it was a rooftop house of seven meters times 12 meters. The house was built on pillars.

Ms. Guissé asked whether all women were assembled in the same building. Ms. Satas replied that they were all assembled in the same house. There was only one room, which was “close to their office”. It had wooden side walls. Ms. Guissé asked whether it was correct that 200 to 300 people were assembled in this one single room of twelve times seven meters. Ms. Satas confirmed this.

Ms. Guissé asked whether the head of the district and his two companions were the only people responsible to watch over the 200 to 300 people, which Ms. Satas confirmed. The district chief had requested them to be tied, since he was concerned that some of them might be fleeing. After having been tied, they were questioned.

Ms. Guissé asked whether Au was the one who interrogated the 200 to 300 women, which Ms. Satas confirmed. Within her group, she was the one who was questioned first. Afterwards, the rest of the group also said they were Khmer.

Asked who had arrested her, she said that soldiers collected them. Ms. Guissé asked whether they therefore knew that they were Cham at the time of the arrest. Ms. Satas replied that the village chief had told the soldiers that they were Cham and had to be relocated. Ms. Guissé further inquired whether the same soldiers who arrested them took them also to Trea, which Ms. Satas confirmed. Ms. Satas then confirmed that it were the same soldiers who were present in Khsach Prachheh Leu. Ms. Guissé stated that she did not understand the logic of this testimony, since the people who arrested them, escorted them to the house and interrogated them knew from the beginning that they were Cham. At this point, both the International Assistant Prosecutor Boyle and National Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer Pich Ang stood up, and the floor was granted to the latter. Mr. Ang objected to the question and stated that the Civil Party had not testified that the soldiers who arrested them also interrogated them. Thus, the question provided a false statement of the facts. Mr. Boyle said that he had wanted to raise the same issue.

Ms. Guissé rephrased her question and asked why they questioned them whether they were Cham or Vietnamese, since they knew at the time of the arrest that they were Cham people. Ms. Satas replied that the district chief questioned them, while the soldiers did not go into the house. The purpose of the interrogation was to make sure that no mistake had been made to arrest Khmer people with the Cham people. At the time, they did not have any accent when speaking Khmer.

Ms. Guissé asked to clarify whether the soldiers who did not enter the house were the ones that had arrested them or the ones who had accompanied the district chief. Ms. Satas replied that only the district chief interrogated them.

Ms. Guissé questioned whether it was only her group of women who said that they were Khmer, which Ms. Satas confirmed. She also affirmed that this group survived. Ms. Guissé asked whether she could remember the names of some of the young women who were with her. She could recall Sor Sarong, who was known under Reyn as her Khmer name and Sary, whose real name was Dyjong. The latter passed away. Ms. Guissé inquired whether the name Ahmad Sofiyah sounded familiar, which Ms. Satas denied. Ms. Guissé explained that Ms. Satas had mentioned Sofiyah in interviews[9] and the person herself had referred to Ms. Satas in her own interview.[10]

Asked whether this refreshed her memory, Ms. Satas replied that she could not remember this name. When the pronunciation of the name Ahmad Sofiyah was clarified (last syllable of Sofiyah stressed), Ms. Satas confirmed knowing this person and said that they were together in the house. “She is my friend.”

To establish the number of people who were detained in the house, Ms. Guissé referred to another interview of a person, who seemingly referred to the same arrest in Trea Village and had stated that all but 6 of the 100 Cham prisoners died in late 1978. He had mentioned the names of Ahmad Sofiyah, No Satas, Slea An, Slea Sara, Mao Maysam, and Ta Myk.[11]

Ms. Guissé asked whether she still stood by her statement that they were 300 women in the house, which the Civil Party confirmed.

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

 

Discrepancies in Testimonies

After the break, Ms. Guissé inquired whether Ms. Satas knew Mr. Ho’s real name, which Ms. Satas denied. Ms. Guissé then asked who told her this name. Ms. Satas said that the member of the district committee told her that the name was Ho. The name of the member of the district committee was Pengheng. The first member was called Chem. Ms. Satas could not provide more information on Ho.

Ms. Guissé read out an excerpt of Ms. Satas’ Written Record of Interview.[12] Ms. Satas had stated that Than, messenger of Ho, is living in Village 4, and Ho was executed. Ms. Guissé asked whether this jogged the Civil Party’s memory. Ms. Satas replied that she was not aware of Mr. Ho’s execution. Ms. Guissé asked why Ms. Satas had told the investigators about the execution of Ho. Ms. Satas stressed that she did not know about his execution and never spoke about this. She knew Ho during the detention, but was not aware of his killing. Ms. Satas insisted that she never said this to the investigators. Ms. Guissé asked whether it was correct that after having been detained at Trea for nine days, she was assigned to Krouch Chhmar market to wash clothes. Ms. Satas confirmed that she was assigned to sort clothes and recognized clothes from her relatives, for example from her mother, brother or uncle.

Ms. Guissé asked whether they did not wear black clothes from the wear. Ms. Satas confirmed that there were black clothes, but also clothes from the former regime that they had been wearing when they were instructed to leave their places. She stayed there a few days to sort through the clothes.

Ms. Satas confirmed that Ahmad Sofiya was with her. She did not remember the reasons she told Ysa Osman’s for her flight to the forest. Ms. Guissé referred to Ms. Satas’ interview.[13] In this interview, she had stated that she fled because she was so closely monitored when sorting through the clothes. Ms. Guissé asked whether this jogged her memory, which Ms. Satas confirmed. There were around 40 people working at the market. She recounted: “Young boys fled into the forest where we were living.” Ms. Guissé said that in the 2008 statement, she had also stated that she fled into the forest. However, she had never spoken about something that had been mentioned in her Civil Party Application: about the fact that she was apparently ordered to dig holes and that these pits were used as their graves. The first time she had stated this was in December 2009 in her Victim Participation Form. Ms. Guissé inquired why she had not mentioned this in her interview neither with Ysa Osman 2009 nor with the investigators in 2008. Ms. Satas replied that she sometimes remembered what she had said and sometimes she could not. Thus, she was unable to answer the defense counsel’s question. “I only remember snippets of what I said in the past.”

Ms. Guissé pressed on this issue and inquired why there were discrepancies between her interview with Yva Osman, the investigators of the court, and her Civil Party application. Ms. Satas could not shed light on this matter. Ms. Guissé pressed on and said that she was surprised to see that Ms. Satas mentioned some facts in some interviews and others did not. At this point, Mr. Boyle interjected and objected to the question. He argued that by the way the Defense Counsel formulated her questions she in fact testified. Ms. Guissé answered that it had been the third time she asked the question and it was therefore clear. She asked the question again. The President intervened and stated that he could not find the information about the digging of their own graves in the documents. Ms. Guissé gave the relevant references and finished her lines of questioning.[14]

The Civil Party was then give the opportunity to make an impact statement. She started by telling about the working and living conditions she experienced, that she never dared to make any mistake even when being sick and recounted that they sometimes had to sleep on graves. She told the Court how difficult the work was, especially when it rained a lot. She then remembered:

 

Civil Party Statement

My father and some of my relatives had already been rounded up and taken away and killed. And later on it was our turn. They used the pretext that we were to be relocated when we were sent away. The men were sent to Stung Trong. And the day after the men were sent, the wives and children were sent subsequently. And I was assigned to work in a mobile unit; that is to go and work in Trea Village. I cannot forget the experience that I went through during the Pol Pot Regime. There are countless events that I cannot recall. If I recalled them, I would tell you everything. Tell you about the difficult time and hardship that I went through. (…) Sometimes the soldiers came to herd some people away. They burned our belongings, they burned blankets. And they destroyed rice and salt. They actually ruined the place, the village, before they left around 6 or 7 o’clock. I almost died during the regime, but I made my determination to live on. If I were to die naturally, then that would be the happy ending for me. I didn’t want to be tied away and taken away and killed. If I were to flee and shot dead that would be it.

She then told the Court about the time that the Vietnamese arrived and talked about the travel to and from Suong. They had to carry wounded soldiers, sometimes with water up to their necks. Next, she remembered the arrival at her home village:

And when we arrived in my village, I asked those who had arrived about my relatives. And they said they said no, they had not seen any, including my grandmother and my parents. And they disappeared since. So I became a lone survivor of my family. By that time, I was not yet married. I actually pitied and I regretted what happened so much, I rather died than losing my family members. Because by that time, I did not marry my husband yet, and if I were to marry a husband and have
children, I would not allow my husband and children to live in such a miserable life. When I looked at other families who had their relatives survive I fell so pitiful of myself sometimes, I had to sit down quietly and wept. I looked like a crazy person at the time. I pitied my younger siblings. I really pitied them. I called when they did not have any food to eat, they lied down on the ground and they were so weak, I had to go out and search for food, for vegetables or leaves for them to eat. They were so skinny. Sometimes I wanted to kill myself. I did not want to witness such a misery experience by my siblings. Every time I recall what happened in the past, it seems that my mind is not in my body anymore. And it’s up to my children, thanks to them, sometimes they tried to comfort me. But to me, the memory is still vivid in my mind. I would exchange my life for food for my siblings. And I keep asking the question to myself, why my siblings, including my mother, were taken away and never returned. And I’d like to put this question to any person in this courtroom responsible and can give me the answer: What was the purpose of making the revolution?

The President informed the Civil Party that she could not directly put questions to parties in the courtroom and had to do this through the President. Ms. Satas then said that she did not have any questions anymore. Mr. Pich Ang requested leave to read out the question she had, which was denied.  The President thanked the Civil Party and dismissed her.

 

Back to Trapeang Thma

The next witness was related to Trapeang Thma Dam. Sot Sophal was born in 1964 in Chrok Jas Village, Preah Net Preah Commune, Preah Net Preah district, Battambang Province (nowadays Banteay Meanchey Province). He currently lives in Trapeang Tav Village, Trapeang Tav Commune, Anlong Veng District, Oddar Meanchey Province. He had been interviewed by the investigators once.

Senior Assistant Prosecutor Travis Farr inquired how old Mr. Sophal was when he was sent to a Kapok plantation. Mr. Sophal answered that he was around 15 and 16 when he started there. He was tasked with various tasks, such as making fertilizer or carrying soil. Mr. Farr inquired how many children Mr. Sophal was working with at the time. There were 2,000 to 3,000 children there. They were separated from their parents. They had to cut the roots, while other people had to dig earth. They had to pee in bottles and pour it over the dirt and plants.

Asked about his age, since he would have been 15 at most at the end of the regime if born in 1964, he stated that his parents told him he was that age, but since he was illiterate he did not know. At the plantation, he was at the east side.

Mr. Farr requested leave to present a map of Trapeang Thma dam worksite, which was granted.[15]

Mr. Farr asked whether he could tell with more precision where he was located. Mr. Sophal replied that he did not understand the map. Mr. Farr stated that Mr. Sophal had stated that he had been part of a Special Children Unit and asked him to explain what this unit was. Mr. Sophal answered that the Special Children Unit was a unit of boys, who were almost teenagers who were able to work. Mr. Farr asked him to describe the daily work. The witness replied that he had to dig pits. There were two carriers. At night, he sometimes would sleep on the handle of his pickax, since he was tired. The carriers would wake him up. He would dig with a pickax. The carriers used woven baskets with shoulder poles. They had to carry the earth from the base of the embankment around 20 meters. The embankment was around 10 meters high. They had to carry the earth to the top. They had to carry around 15 kilograms of earth in two baskets combined. He could not recall his weight of the time. There was no machinery to help digging, “only human labor.”

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

Collapse of Workers due to Exhaustion and Malnutrition

In the last session of today’s hearing, Mr. Farr inquired whether Mr. Sophal considered the work at the dam site easy or hard. Mr. Sophal replied that it was hard, because the food was not sufficient. There was one bowl of tasteless rice for four workers. While the others were carrying the earth that he had dug, he would sleep and they would wake him up. He saw workers who fell unconscious and workers who died when they carrying earth. They died because of overwork and insufficient food. They started work at 3 am in the morning and stopped at 11 am for lunch. Then, they had to work from 2 pm to 5 pm. At 5 pm, they would rest for five minutes and had to work again until around 10 pm or 11 pm. Those who collapsed were both children and adults. When he asked whether he could estimate how many times this happened, Mr. Koppe interjected. He argued that this witness seemed to be the first witness to testify that people died after collapsing. A distinction should therefore be made. Mr. Farr inquired what made the witness think that they died after they collapsed. Mr. Sophal replied that he saw them trying to resuscitate the workers, but were unable to do so. He confirmed that he saw this and that he saw that the attempts to resuscitate these workers were unsuccessful.

 

Work Quotas

As regards work quotas, the witness testified that at the beginning, they only imposed working hours. After around a month after his arrival, a quota was imposed. The food ration would be reduced if they did not achieve their work quota. These work quotas were imposed by the group and unit chief. At the first day, they were given a quota of one cubic meter. If they completed it, it would be increased the next day to 1.5 cubic meters, and then to two cubic meters, for example. Mr. Farr then inquired what the witness meant with the word storm attack. Mr. Sophal stated that this term was given to them at a conference, where they had been told to work harder. Asked whether anyone told him why work quotas were introduced later, Mr. Sophal answered that they considered that “[the work] did not proceed fast enough.” If they did not complete the quota, their food ration would be reduced. During two months, “we worked nonstop.” He could give detail how the achievement of the work quota was measured. His group chief measured the land for them to dig.

Mr. Farr then asked whether there was any other punishment than reduction of the food ration if they failed to achieve the quota. If not achieving the work quota, they would be reprimanded once or twice. If this happened a third time, the worker would be tied and hanged to a rope connected to a wooden frame. Afterwards, that person would be released again. Sometimes, it was public. In the beginning, it was done at night time. When the person returned, a person had told him about this procedure. This person told him that he was warned that he would be taken away and killed if he “kept doing that.” Later on, that person was taken away and killed.

 

Meetings

Every month or two a meeting was organized where they were instructed to “make their commitment” to receive and complete the work plan jointly. Mr. Farr inquired whether he ever heard the phrase “To keep you is no gain, to lose you is no loss”, which Mr. Sophal confirmed. He said he heard this every day from the militia who had weapons and swords. “They were pretty young. They were children, not adults.” They said these words in meetings and outside of meetings. Asked who said this during the meetings, Mr. Sophal replied that it came from “the big chief” called Ta Val. These meetings took place two or three times. These meetings took place every fortnight. They were happy to attend the meetings, since this would mean that they could rest.

Mr. Farr inquired whether Mr. Sophal could describe Ta Val’s character. The witness replied that since he was rather young at the time, he could not describe his behavior. To his recollection, Ta Val was at the dam until the end of the regime.

 

Working and Living Conditions

Mr. Farr then inquired about the working hours and asked whether the time of 3 am that Mr. Sophal had mentioned referred to the time that he woke up or started working. Mr. Sophal clarified that it was the former. He recounted the work hours. Mr. Farr inquired whether night work took place occasionally or every day. Mr. Sophal replied that it occurred every day during the period that he worked there. There was light to work through the night.

Mr. Farr turned to the topic of food rations and asked what this ration was and how much it was cut when they failed to meet their work quotas. Mr. Sophal replied that there was one bowl or rice and one bowl of soup shared amongst four workers. There were around two or three ladles of rice per worker. When asked about his weight during the time at Trapeang Thma, Mr. Sophal compared his condition to the conditions of a sick person or of someone who suffered of HIV.

 

Due to technical issues, the President interrupted the questioning at 15.30 and adjourned the hearing at 15:40. The hearing resumes tomorrow at 9 am.

 

[1] E3/7675, at 00221859 (EN), 00293924-25 (FR), 00221853 (KH), this corresponds to p. 84 in the English version. The relevant Written Record of Interview is E3/5205.

[2] Testimony of IT Sen, 08 September 2015.

[3] E3/9307, at 01132815 (EN), 00128401 (FR), 00045906 (KH).

[4] E3/5193, at 00274704 (EN) 00224113 (FR), 00204445 (KH).

[5] E3/2653, at 00219148 (EN), 00904326-27 (KH), no French translation

[6] E3/9307, at 01128393 (FR), 00045895 (KH), 01132808 (EN).

[7] Testimony of No Satas, September 28 2015, at 15.45- 15:43.

[8] E3/9307, at 00128401 (FR), 01132815 (EN), 00045906 (KH).

[9] E3/2653, at 00219244 (EN). Footnotes 104 and 105. In these footnotes, he refers to E3/933.

[10] E3/7747, Written Record of Interview of Ahmad Sofiyah.

[11] E3/1822, at 00078454 (ENG), no other language available.

[12] E3/5193, at 00224113 (FR), 00274704 (EN), 00204445 (KH).

[13] E3/9307, at 01128404 (FR), 00045910 (KH), 01132818 (EN).

[14] E3/4705, at 00417852 (EN), 00369026 (KH), 00932676 (FR).

[15] E3/8050, p. 3.