Former Cadre Testifies on Authority Structure of Central Zone
In today’s hearing at the ECCC, former Khmer Rouge cadre Ban Siek gave his testimony on the authority structure in the Central Zone, which was formerly known as the North Zone, and various districts in this zone, as well as information about the treatment of Cham people in his district. His testimony will continue tomorrow with the defense teams taking their turn of cross-examining the witness.
Tasks in Early Democratic Kampuchea
At the beginning of the session, the Trial Chamber President Nil Nonn announced that today and tomorrow, witness 2-TCW-950 would be heard with witness 2-TCW-904 being on the reserve. The first day would be allotted to the Office of the Co-Prosecutors and the Civil Party Co-Lawyers, while the defense would be granted the floor tomorrow. Following this announcement, the Trial Chamber Greffier confirmed the presence of all parties, except Nuon Chea who would follow the proceedings from the holding cell.
Witness Ban Siek, born in 1954 in Russei Kraok Village, Russei Kraok Sub-district, Mongkol Borei District, Banteay Meanchey Province, lives in Anlong Veang Province nowadays and is a retired member of the district council.
The floor was then given to the Co-Prosecutors.
International Senior Assistant Prosecutor Dale Lysak started his line of questioning by asking about Mr. Siek’s background. He asked whether Mr. Siek was related to Sou Soeun, who had testified earlier and was the wife of Central Zone secretary Ke Pauk. Mr. Siek answered that she was married to his cousin. She is the cousin of his wife. Mr. Siek married his wife when he was 18 years old. Mr. Lysak asked whether this meant that he married around 1972. Mr. Siek replied that he thought it was around 1970, but he could not remember exactly. Mr. Lysak inquired whether Ke Pauk, Sou Soeun and her brother Oeun came to his wedding, which Mr. Siek denied.
Mr. Siek said he first met them when he “was at the fishing lot.”
The witness had been working at the Sector 42 fishing lot in Kampong Cham from 1975 to early 1977. Mr. Lysak inquired whether Sou Soeun was also located in Preak Prasat district during that period, which Mr. Siek could not answer. Mr. Lysak asked where exactly Mr. Siek was located when working in this fishing lot. Mr. Siek confirmed that he fished along the Mekong River.
Mr. Lysak then inquired whether he was aware of any Cham people who were moved across the river from the East Zone in late 1975, which Mr. Siek denied. This prompted Mr. Lysak to read out an excerpt of a telegram from the East Zone that was sent to Pol Pot and copied to Nuon Chea on the 30th of November 1975 regarding the relocation of Cham people.[1] This telegram indicated that Cham people were relocated to Steung Traeng and Preak Prasab. Mr. Siek denied that this refreshed his memory.
Purges of the Central Zone
Mr. Lysak turned to his next topic, namely the purge of the Central Zone/old North Zone.
In his statement, the witness had said that he left Preak Prasat district and was appointed Deputy Chief of Public Works of Sector 42 in early 1977 at the time of the purge and later Sector 42 Commerce Chief. Mr. Lysak wanted to know who appointed Mr. Siek to these positions. Mr. Siek replied that it was Oeun, his cousin-in-law. Mr. Lysak inquired whether Oeun was the brother of Sou Soeun, which Mr. Siek confirmed. Oeun was the Sector 42 Secretary. Mr. Lysak inquired what Mr. Siek remembered about the period when cadres in the CZ/old North Zone were purged. Mr. Siek replied that he was told that there would be a purge of the Central Zone/old North Zone and that the chief of the fishing unit would be taken away with his wife. Only two people remained: Ke Pauk and Oeun. The rest was purged. These cadres were accused of being linked to CIA agents.
Mr. Lysak then wanted to know whether any of the cadres tried to resist or fought back, which the witness denied. All of them were called into a study session, after which they disappeared. Mr. Lysak asked how things changed after the arrest of these cadres. Mr. Siek replied that after the purges, Southwest Zone cadres came in and replaced the cadres. Mr. Lysak further inquired whether the Southwest Zone cadres mistreated the people. Mr. Siek replied that if one could not do the harvest, “they were accused of being an enemy.” However, he did not witness it himself but heard about it from others.
Mr. Lysak then referred to the interview of Ke Pauk.[2] In this interview, Ke Pauk had accused the Southwest Zone cadres of “severely mistreating” people and called them evil cadres. Mr. Lysak inquired whether Mr. Siek agreed with this description.
At this point, Nuon Chea Defense Counsel Victor Koppe objected to the question and said that the witness had already stated that he did not witness mistreatment himself. An answer would therefore be merely speculative.
Mr. Lysak responded by saying that he first asked an open ended question, followed by reading out an excerpt to see whether this refreshed the witness’s memory. The objection was overruled. Mr. Siek replied that he did not know about this matter, since he was a youth at the fishing unit at the time.
Mr. Lysak clarified that he had asked about the period after his time in the fishing unit, so when he was the Deputy Chief of Public works and then Chief of commerce. Mr. Siek responded that he did not know.
Mr. Lysak pressed on and asked whether Ke Pauk trusted the cadres from the Southwest Zone cadres and whether he wanted the old North Zone cadres to be replaced. Mr. Siek answered that he did not understand the matter Mr. Lysak had raised.
Mr. Lysak asked leave to present the witness’s OCIJ interviews to Mr. Siek.[3] Mr. Koppe interjected and stated that it did “not make any sense” to present Written Records of Interviews to the witness, since they were “anxiously awaiting” the Trial Chamber’s decision about whether witnesses should have the opportunity to review their Written Records of Interviews at all. Mr. Lysak responded that it was only fair to give the witness his statements that he was confronted with. The objection was overruled based on the existing practice.
Mr. Lysak referred to one of the witness’s interviews, where he had stated that Ke Pauk did not have good relations with Sen and did not trust the cadres of the Southwest. Mr. Lysak asked how the witness knew that Ke Pauk did not trust them. Son Sen was superior to Ke Pauk and he therefore did not understand the matter.
Mr. Lysak asked whether Ke Pauk had decided to purge the zone. Mr. Siek replied that the order was from a higher level. Some of them were “perhaps sent to Phnom Penh and not other zones.” Mr. Lysak then read out another excerpt, where Mr. Siek had stated that the orders came from Office 870.[4] Mr. Lysak inquired how Mr. Siek knew that orders to kill or to purge came from this office. Mr. Siek replied that Ke Pauk disappeared and they did not believe that orders came from Ke Pauk. “Besides, only cadres from the Southwest Zone remained.”
Responsibility in the Public Work Sector
Mr. Lysak asked what month Mr. Siek was assigned to the Public Work Sector unit. Mr. Siek replied that he could not recall this. This prompted Mr. Lysak to request leave to provide an S-21 List to the witness entitled “List of persons from the North Zone” of February to March 1977.[5] At this point, Mr. Koppe objected, since Mr. Siek did not have any connection to the S-21 document. He further alleged that he objected despite knowing that the objection would be overruled for the benefit of a second appeal. Mr. Lysak replied that this witness had been a sector-level cadre and might know the cadres listened in the document. The objection was overruled and the document presented to the witness. Mr. Koppe referred to number 42 on the list, called Chann Mon alias Tol, chairman of Sector 42, who entered S-21 on 19 February 1977. Mr. Lysak asked whether Mr. Siek remembered Tol and whether he was Sector 42 Secretary before Oeun. Mr. Siek corrected the pronunciation and stated that Tol lived in Bak Snar.
Mr. Lysak stated that in February and March 1977 Tol and other sector cadres were purged. He asked whether this took place during the same period that Oeun became the new Sector 42 Secretary and that Mr. Siek was appointed to his position in public works. Mr. Siek replied that Oeun took up his position four or five months before him. Mr. Siek was appointed to be in charge of public work later. He did not know about the purge of cadres – he only noticed that the cadres kept disappearing. Mr. Lysak inquired whether he understood it correctly that Mr. Siek was appointed his position a few months after Oeun took his position. Mr. Siek answered that six or seven months later, Oeun was looking for other subordinates to work with him.
Mr. Lysak inquired where the witness was based during that time period. Mr. Siek replied that the car garage was located at an intersection opposite of the sector office. “I was so scared when I was sent to be in charge of the public work, because I had a biography.” This was in Chamkar Leu district, Svay Teab commune.
Authority Structures
Mr. Lysak then inquired about his work as a Sector 42 Commerce Chief. Mr. Siek replied that he was in this position three or four months before being appointed Sector 42 Commerce Chief. Oeun was the Sector Chief at the time.
Mr. Lysak asked who the Zone public-works chairman was during the time that Mr. Siek was the Sector public work’s chairman. Mr. Siek answered that this was Chham who had previously been a messenger of Ke Pauk. Mr. Lysak asked whether the witness remembered a cadre called Sao, who was the public affairs secretary before Chham took the position.
The sector 42 commerce office was located in a pagoda in Speu commune. It was around two kilometers from the office where Oeun worked. They were located in different communes.
His name was Chey. Mr. Lysak inquired what happened to Chey in 1977. Mr. Siek replied that Chey was arrested and taken away to Phnom Penh. He was the younger-in-law of Oeun.
Mr. Lysak requested leave to present two other S-21 lists.[6] Number 7 of the second list was a Central Zone cadre who had been at the Zone Commerce before being arrested on October 3rd 1977. . He was called Pheng Sun alias Chey.[7] Mr. Siek replied that he did not know Chey’s full name.
Mr. Siek was in the commerce office for a month when Chey was accused of being in the CIA network and arrested. After Chey’s arrest, he worked three months before being appointed as the commerce secretary of Chamkar Leu.
Mr. Lysak turned to the next topic and asked whether Mr. Siek knew the 1st January Dam that was built in his sector, which Mr. Siek confirmed. However, he never worked or went there. He knew the pagoda in Baray Chan Dek. However, he did not know what this pagoda was used for during the Khmer Rouge. This prompted Mr. Lysak to refer to Mr. Siek’s OCIJ interview, where Mr. Siek had stated that Bang Poch would have more information about this Security Center, since he visited that center almost once a month.[8] In another subsequent interview, Mr. Siek had added that Poch, as the District Secretary, must have known about the security office.[9] Mr. Lysak inquired how Mr. Siek knew about the responsibility of Poch at the security office. Mr. Siek replied that Poch came from the Southwest. Thus, he must have known about the arrest of those cadres.
When Mr. Lysak asked during which years Poch was the Secretary of Baray district, Mr. Koppe interjected and stated that the questions related to the authority structure of the sector. However, the pagoda was not included under the treatment of the Cham and therefore not relevant. Mr. Lysak replied that the questions were relevant to the trial and that they were not going to call witness back. The President instructed Mr. Lysak to continue his questioning.
The witness did not recall the exact time that Bang Pouch was Secretary of Baray District, since he was in the fishing unit at the time.
Knowledge about the Sector
After the break, Mr. Koppe made an observation for the record. The issue he had raised with regards to the pagoda was not related to the relevance of the question, which he did not dispute. However, he wanted to point out that the Co-Prosecution seemed to have advanced knowledge. The person that had been referred to as the Secretary of Baray District was on the prosecution’s witness list. Moreover, the person had just given testimony in case 004. This Written Record of Interview was disclosed on September 29 and was available only in Khmer at the moment. This example, according to Mr. Koppe, objectively indicated the benefit that the Prosecution had with the disclosure procedure. Since he does not speak Khmer, he was unable to know what the witness had stated. Moreover, if the witness was so important, he could come back in the segment on purges. This was an inacceptable situation. Mr. Lysak replied that he did not know what the Khmer Written Record of Interview entailed either. He had only read the prior interviews of the witness, which included interviews from case 002 investigations.
Mr. Lysak then continued his examination of the witness. Mr. Lysak inquired whether the witness remembered the visit of a Chinese delegation in his region in December 1977. Mr. Siek said that he did not know. Mr. Lysak asked whether Mr. Siek remembered an inauguration ceremony of 1st January Dam and whether he was present, which Mr. Siek denied.
Mr. Lysak then stated that the witness had indicated of having been appointed the Deputy Secretary of Chamkar Leu District in late 1977. Mr. Lysak wanted to know whether this took place in late November or early December 1977. Mr. Siek replied that he came to take the position of the Deputy Secretary in late 1977. The Secretary was Sou Soeun. This prompted Mr. Lysak to read out an excerpt of the transcript of Sou Soeun’s testimony in front of the court.[10] She had stated that the Chamkar Leu district chief was someone called Ta Ban.
Mr. Siek insisted that he was the Deputy Secretary and that Sou Soeun had been the secretary. Asked about the location of the office, Mr. Siek said that Chamkar Leu district office was located around 500 meters from the Sector’s office in Svay Teap commune. Mr. Lysak further inquired whether Mr. Siek knew Tieng, the Chamkar Leu District Secretary before Sou Soeun. Mr. Siek denied this.
This prompted Mr. Lysak to refer to the third S-21 list.[11] Mr. Lysak pointed out number 6, a cadre named Kev Chhorn, who had been the chief of Chamkar Leu Security Center, at number 21, a member of the Chamkar Leu committee, number 1, the Sector 42 Security Chief Meas Sok alias Sao, numbers 5-15 and 18-26. All of these cadres had been arrested on either the 14th or 19th November. Mr. Lysak inquired whether Mr. Siek remembered the arrest of a number of cadres in his sector in mid November 1977 and whether there was anything that triggered their arrest. Mr. Siek replied that he did not know who had been arrested. When he became the Deputy Chief of Public Works Unit, purges had already been done. As the last question concerning this topic, Mr. Lysak inquired whether anyone ever told him the reasons about the arrests of the cadres, which Mr. Siek denied.
Treatment of the Cham
Mr. Lysak then turned to the topic of treatment of Cham. He asked whether Cham people were living in Chamkar Leu, and if yes, where they were living. Mr. Siek replied that he did not know where they were living, since he was responsible for L’vea and Chamkar Andoung villages and did not know what happened in the other villages. Mr. Lysak asked whether he understood correctly that he had been living in Chamkar Leu ever since becoming the Chief of Commerce, which the witness confirmed. There were no Cham in the communes he was responsible for.
Mr. Lysak asked whether the witness was aware that Speu in Chay Yu area was home for many Cham people. Mr. Siek replied that the office was located in a pagoda and he had no knowledge about the Cham population in this area.
This prompted Mr. Lysak to refer to another witness’s OCIJ Interview.[12] This witness had stated that there were 1100 Cham families from Speu villages. When asked whether this refreshed his memory, Mr. Siek replied that he had no knowledge of the Cham families. He was not aware of Cham people working in this village.
Mr. Lysak pressed on and referred to Mr. Siek’s own Written Record of Interview, where he had stated that Cham people were working in cooperatives.[13] Mr. Siek denied that this refreshed his memory. He said that no one told them who was Khmer and who was Cham. He recounted that Cham were prohibited from practicing their religion. Also Buddhist monks had been defrocked.
When Mr. Lysak inquired how many Cham people survived, Mr. Koppe objected and stated that if Mr. Siek did not know how many Cham people were living there, he also could not know how many of them survived. This would be pure speculation. Mr. Lysak rephrased the question and asked whether Mr. Siek knew whether the Cham survived. The witness replied that he did not know.
Mr. Lysak proceeded to refer to an excerpt of Ysa Osman’s book Oukoubah, in which he had stated that 1000 Cham families went missing during the Khmer Rouge.[14] He inquired what happened to these families, of which Mr. Siek denied any knowledge.
Mr. Lysak inquired what Mr. Siek’s responsibility in L’vea commune was. Mr. Siek replied that it including digging canals and harvest. Next, Mr. Lysak inquired whether Mr. Siek knew of the Tapom rubber plantation. Mr. Siek confirmed this and said that a person called Chhem was responsible for this plantation. He did not know more about this plantation. Mr. Lysak read out a complaint by a Cham person relating to L’vea district.[15] According to this complaint, Cham people were killed at Tapom rubber plantation. Mr. Lysak asked whether the witness knew about killing of Cham. Mr. Siek replied that this was not the case. He recounted that the district level sometimes did not know what was happening on the ground. Moreover, the plantation belonged to the zone
Mr. Lysak inquired where District Security Office in Chamkar Leu was located. Mr. Siek replied that he heard that it was located in Bos Khnor commune, but that he never went there.
When Mr. Lysak inquired whether Mr. Siek knew about meetings at that location, more specifically where the plan to eliminate Cham people was announced, Mr. Koppe objected. He argued that the closing order only related to Sector 41 or 21 in East Zone, but not in Sector 42. Thus, the question was outside of the scope of closing order and the trial. Mr. Lysak replied that the question did not relate to crime-base evidence, which would indeed be outside the scope of the trial, but presented evidence of a general policy. Moreover, it related to a witness who will most likely testify here: 2-TCW-827.
Mr. Koppe said that this was matter of principle. If the chamber chose to overrule his objection, he requested a written decision by the Trial Chamber to include locations that were not related to Sector 41 or 21. After conferring with the bench, the floor was given to Judge Claudia Fenz to make an oral ruling. The objection was overruled, since the question related to the nation-wide policy.
Mr. Siek answered that he was not aware of such a meeting.
Mr. Lysak referred to another interview given by the same witness (2-TCW-827), in which this witness had stated that he heard cadres talk about the plan to smash enemy and that the “biggest enemy are the Cham”, which had to be destroyed before 1980.[16] Mr. Lysak inquired whether Mr. Siek ever heard anyone speak about this meeting in Bos Khnor, which Mr. Siek denied. He testified that Cham people and Khmer people were “in the same boat. I lost two of my siblings.”
Mr. Lysak then referred to the testimony by a former district secretary and requested leave to present the biographical information of this person to the witness.[17] Mr. Koppe objected. He argued that a more general objection to the “tsunami of case 004 documents” had been made by the Nuon Chea Defense Team a few weeks ago. He objected to the use of these particular documents shown now, since the Chamber had not ruled on the request made earlier. He again requested to stop the Prosecution from going into questioning that is related to ongoing investigations. Mr. Lysak replied that the witness was on the original trial list of June 2014. The relevant documents had been admitted many months ago.
Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer Marie Guiraud stated that they would rely on wisdom of the chamber. The Khieu Samphan defense team referred to document E303 memorandum on disclosures of documents from 003 and 004. The defense had requested clarification by the chamber on disclosures, which had not been issued yet. Mr. Koppe added that his objection against introduction of Written Records of Interview of this particular witness had been denied. The decision had been rendered two days before the Khmer translation of the request was filed. In this request, they had made reference to Cambodian national law. Mr. Koppe inquired how the national judges could have decided on this matter without having been able to read submission.
The President explained that the Chamber had already informed the parties the Chamber is working on the decision on the translation of their decision and that they are “doing their best” to issue the decision. Once this was organized, they would inform the parties in due course. He further elaborated that they faced the same challenges as other parties to read disclosed documents. They had reached agreement regarding certain points, but needed more time. The request for the adjournment of hearing the testimony of Cham was overruled.
Mr. Lysak asked whether Mr. Siek knew the person of the document[18] presented to him, which Mr. Siek denied. This person had stated that there was a meeting at the sector level in sector 41. The sector level gave this former district chief an order to smash Cham people. His subordinated reported that the orders had been carried out. Further, according to this witness, Ta An conveyed orders to district chief. Mr. Lysak asked whether Mr. Siek knew Ta An. Mr. Koppe rose to his feet and stated that “this is so not how you should be asking questions”. The objection was overruled. The witness replied that he knew Ta An, who was the Sector Secretary.
At this point, the President adjourned the hearing for a break.
Authority Structure in the Zone
At the beginning of the third session, the President asked duty counsel to indicate her number and the office she was working for. After she had given this information, the floor was granted to Mr. Lysak. Mr. Lysak inquired whether Ta An was the Deputy Secretary of the Central Zone under Ke Pauk. The witness replied that Ta An was the Zone Deputy Secretary, member of the Zone committee, and in charge of Sector 41. Mr. Lysak asked whether Mr. Siek had heard about a similar order been given in Sector 42 to kill all the Cham, which Mr. Siek denied. Mr. Lysak said that the witness had been in the sector form mid 1977 until mid 1978 and asked whether the witness had any other explanation for the 1000 families missing other than that they were identified and killed. Mr. Koppe objected and stated that the question was phrased in a way that the evidence was presented in an undisputable way, whereas the information came from one particular Written Record of Interview. Mr. Lysak rephrased the question and asked whether Mr. Siek had any other explanation for the disappearance of the 1,000 families that had been mentioned earlier today.
National Khieu Samphan Defense Counsel Kong Sam Onn objected and stated that Mr. Lysak’s question requested an explanation of an event which the witness could not give. Second, the witness had already stated that he did not know that these families disappeared; he could therefore also not know the reasons for their alleged disappearance.
Mr. Lysak inquired, based on experience as sector and district cadre, whether sector and district cadres had the authority to purge people, or whether this decision had to come from the Center. Mr. Siek stated that they did not have the authority for this, unless being instructed from the upper echelon to do so.
Mr. Lysak then asked what Mr. Siek knew about the role of Nuon Chea in Democratic Kampuchea, and in particular with the role of the party’s policy. Mr. Siek replied that he heard from other cadres who had studied with Nuon Chea that Nuon Chea was very strict. The cadres who told him so were the region cadres and district committee members. They attended study sessions with Nuon Chea. “It was like when I studied with Son Sen.” The people who told him so were sector and district committee members.
Mr. Lysak referred to Mr. Siek’s interview, where he had stated that he remembered people saying that the one who issued orders to purge the zones was Nuon Chea.[19] Mr. Lysak asked to clarify who told Mr. Siek this about Nuon Chea. Mr. Siek replied that it was the plan of senior cadres of the upper echelon. Nuon Chea instructed them. He heard this from brother Oeun, who told him that the purge was the plan of the upper echelon. He talked specifically about the role of Nuon Chea.
Mr. Lysak inquired whether Mr. Siek was sent to Krouch Chhmar district before or after the arrest of the former East Zone cadres. Mr. Koppe objected to the phrasing of the question. The Prosecution used the word “purge” and “arrest” of East Zone cadres. In Krouch Chhmar in Sector 21, there were not many arrests at the time that Mr. Siek went there, since there was a full-armed conflict. The words arrest and purge were therefore not appropriate. Mr. Lysak replied that Mr. Koppe was giving testimony. However, he rephrased his question and asked whether Mr. Siek was aware of East Zone cadres who were either arrested or fled to the jungle in 1978, and whether this was before or after Mr. Siek himself went to Krouch Chhmar. Mr. Siek replied that Chea Sim and Heng Samrin had fled to the jungle. “At that time I did not know very much, because I was in charge of the fishing lot and that was the affair of the upper echelon.” Mr. Lysak stated that on 25 May 1978 on which many high-ranking cadres had been arrested and asked how this date related to the time that Mr. Siek was sent to Krouch Chhmar. Mr. Koppe objected and stated that the cadres fled to Vietnam and not the jungle. Mr. Lysak rephrased his question and asked about the time that cadres fled to the jungle and some of the subsequently fled to Vietnam. Mr. Siek replied that he did not know.
Mr. Siek further testified that Rin was the deputy secretary and Son Sen was the zone secretary. Mr. Lysak then inquired where Rin was from. Mr. Siek replied that Rin was originally from the Southwest Zone. Mr. Lysak asked whether the witness knew that Rin was a relative from Ta Mok, which Mr. Siek confirmed. Mr. Lysak stated that a number of people had said that Nuon Chea was appointed Zone chairman after Sao Phim’s death, in particular Mat Ly.[20] Also, an interview of S-21 Chairman Duch indicated that East Zone forces belonging to Sao Phim were completely smashed and that Nuon Chea was the Secretary of the East Zone.[21] Mr. Lysak inquired how Mr. Siek knew that Son Sen was Zone Secretary and whether he had any reaction to the testimonies that Nuon Chea was East Zone Secretary. Mr. Siek replied that Son Sen conducted study sessions together with Rin. This was at the time when the Vietnamese forces approached.
Mr. Siek confirmed that Son Sen stated that he was Zone Secretary and Hong was his deputy, being in charge of two sectors.
There was no permanent office during his time in Krouch Chhmar. Mr. Lysak inquired where the meetings that Mr. Siek had mentioned in his Written Record of Interview were held. Mr. Siek replied that they were sometimes held in a pagoda and sometimes in Krouch Chhmar, but in no permanent office. He did not hold the position for long, since the attacks started soon after.
Mr. Lysak asked where the pagoda was located, which Mr. Siek could not answer. The meetings in Krouch Chhmar sometimes held place in the former District Commerce office. Mr. Lysak asked whether this commerce office was sometimes used to detain people who had been arrested, which Mr. Siek denied.
This prompted Mr. Lysak to read an excerpt of Mr. Siek’s interview.[22] In this interview, Mr. Siek had stated that an office was used to detain people. Mr. Lysak asked where this office was located. Mr. Siek answered that he could not recall this.
Detention in Krouch Chhmar
Mr. Lysak referred to another witness’s interview (2-TCW-904), who had worked as a sub-district clerk in Trea Village.[23] This witness had said that the office where people were detained was located in Trea Village. Mr. Siek replied that there was no fixed office and no place where people were detained, since there were no Security Forces.
Mr. Lysak said that Mr. Siek had stated a few minutes ago that the commerce office was used for meetings sometimes and asked whether this was located in Trea Village. Mr. Siek replied that it was a place where “the boats docked.” He said it was located in Krouch Chhmar and not in Trea. Mr. Lysak inquired which of his aliases Hang Pos and Hang Sang Hor he normally used. Mr. Siek stated that he was born under the name Hang Sang Hor, was known under the Khmer Rouge as Hang Pos, as who he was still known today. His national identity card says Siek. He denied that he was known as Hor under the Khmer Rouge. This prompted Mr. Lysak to refer to a former cadre’s testimony from Krouch Chhmar had identified him as Hor.[24] She worked as a cook at the Krouch Chhmar commerce office. Moreover, witness 2-TCW-904 also identified Krouch Chhmar district as Hor.[25] Mr. Lysak inquired whether he used the name Hor instead of the name Pos in the period that he was Krouch Chhmar. Mr. Siek denied this and said that he only used it while being at the fishing lot. He did no longer use this name when he moved to Sector 42.
Mr. Lysak asked whether he had authority to decide about people being executed, and if he did not, who made these decisions. Mr. Siek stated that he did not have such an authority. Orders and authority lay with the upper echelon to smash enemies.
Mr. Lysak inquired whether there was any resistance. Mr. Siek replied that there were young people in a mobile unit. Mr. Lysak asked who these people had done. The witness replied that he learned it from his brother that these people had gathered in the jungle to take part of the rebellion. Those people were taken to one location and “they all were purged.” He confirmed that he meant that they were killed. The order to kill them came from the Zone. They might have received it from the upper echelon. Mr. Lysak inquired whether he remembered an instruction in “red ink” that he had received. Mr. Siek replied that the order came from the Zone and then to the Sector Secretary.
Mr. Siek went to the site where they were killed. They were killed at a place that was similar to a school. The letter was delivered to the soldiers who were a mixture of soldiers from the center and the district. They took part in the executions. The Center soldiers were under the command of Rom. Rom was also known as Kung and was in charge of the special unit force that belonged to the center. They were in charge of the national security. When referring to Kheu he meant Son Sen.
Mr. Lysak asked what Son Sen talked about in the meeting that Mr. Siek had mentioned earlier and what they talked about. Mr. Siek replied that it took place at a rubber plantation. The district chiefs attended the meetings. They talked about drafting people to go to the battlefield. Mr. Lysak asked what district and commune the rubber plantation was located in. Mr. Siek replied that the Chub Rubber Plantation was located in Tboung Koung. Mr. Siek stated that he talked about the infiltrated enemies. They had to be very careful not to draft those agents into the army.
Mr. Lysak then referred to one the witness’s Written Record of Interviews.[26] He had stated that the New People were considered bad elements. Mr. Lysak inquired whether Son Sen had explained why New People were considered bad elements. Mr. Siek said that they did not refer to New People during the meeting.
Asked about Cham people, he said that he could not tell where Cham people came from. Mr. Lysak asked whether Mr. Siek was told about the Cham people when being the district secretary and more specifically about two rebellions. Mr. Siek said that the upper echelon did not mention Cham people.
Mr. Lysak read out an excerpt of Mr. Siek’s interview,[27] and asked why Mr. Siek had not told the court the truth about his position in Krouch Chhmar district in his first Written Record of Interview. Mr. Siek replied that he was of the view that he worked at Krouch Chhmar just for a brief period of time at the time. He thought that he did not have to tell this. He had his personal matters with his family.
Mr. Lysak asked whether one of the reason that he denied having been in Krouch Chhmar was that some “bad things” had happened that he did not want to talk about. Mr. Siek replied that he worked in this position for a short period of time. There was a purge. At the time, his former colleagues told him that he did not have to disclose “so much”, since he would “bring trouble to himself” otherwise. Thus, he decided not to tell every detail.
At this point, the President adjourned the hearing for a break.
Killings at Trea Village
To begin the last session, Mr. Lysak asked whether Mr. Siek was aware of an incident in Trea Village where many people were being killed. Mr. Siek denied this. He was there only for a short time to attend a training session. However, he confirmed that he saw corpses floating in the river that had been decapitated.
Mr. Lysak then read out an excerpt of the witness’s Written Record of Interview.[28] In this part of the interview, Mr. Siek had mentioned killing at Trea Village. Mr. Lysak inquired how he knew about the killing. Mr. Siek replied that he knew it from someone else, but did not know how or where they were killed. Asked who gave the order, Mr. Siek replied that when the rebellion was planned, the order was given from the upper echelon through the chain of command. When he saw the corpses floating in the river, he was on a motorboat. They did not dare coming to the shores. One of the deputy district members had been shot before. This is why they travelled by motorboat.
Ke Pauk’s son Ke Pich Vannak described incident of decapitations of Cham people.[29] Mr. Lysak asked whether Mr. Siek knew about this incident. Mr. Siek replied that Ke Pauk’s son is also the in-law of his cousin. He could not inform the court how much Pich Vannak knew about the event. It was Ke Pauk who knew about all the events that took place in the region, since he was also in charge of the military in the East Zone.
Mr. Lysak asked whether Mr. Siek knew a special intervention unit commanded by a Comrade Phin, which Mr. Siek denied. He only knew the ones under the command of Kuong.
Mr. Lysak referred to another excerpt of Ke Pauk’s son.[30] He is son-in law of Ta Mok. Mr. Lysak inquired whether Mr. Siek knew Ta Vin and brigade commander Nya. Mr. Siek said that he knew Veun after the Vietnamese arrived. Vin was the deputy commande, and Phing was another cadre.
Responsibility for the arrests of Cham?
Mr. Lysak referred back to witness 2-TCW-904’s interview.[31] : This witness had stated that Hor was in charge of the arrest of numerous Cham people. Mr. Lysak asked whether Mr. Siek himself had authority to decide on the arrest of people, or whether this could only be decided on the sector level. Mr. Siek replied that he was not aware of that issue. He was reassigned to the North Zone. People were evacuated to Krouch Chhmar, because the army could not control them.
Mr. Lysak asked what the witness knew about the Vietnamese and what happened to them under the Democratic Kampuchea. Mr. Siek replied that he did not know. However, he had heard the Vietnamese people had been purged along the river and in the villages. He had been told it was at Samraong Seyn in Kampong Chhnang province where the Vietnamese lived and fished. Asked how he knew about this, Mr. Siek replied that he heard it from soldiers who came from the area.
Mr. Lysak read out an excerpt one of the witness’s interview,s in which he had stated that all Vietnamese and Khmer people in the North had been executed.[32] Mr. Lysak asked to clarify whether Mr. Siek was referring to Khmer Krom people or to Khmer cadres who had been trained in the north. Mr. Siek replied that at his location there were Khmer cadres who had been trained in Vietnam. These cadres had been trained in 1974. With this, Mr. Lysak concluded his line of questioning.
National Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer Pich Ang started his questioning. Mr. Ang referred to one of Mr. Siek’s Written Records of Interviews.[33] Mr. Ang inquired why Mr. Siek had made the statement that the Communist party loathed the Cham and Buddhist people. At this point, Mr. Koppe objected, stating that an open question should be asked first before confronting the witness with an interview. Mr. Sam Onn also objected and stated that the witness was not an expert and could therefore not give the reason why the Communist party loathed the Cham people. The objections were sustained.
Mr. Ang asked how they treated Buddhist monks and those related to the monarch. Mr. Siek replied that that the Buddhist monks were considered enemies of the party, since they were lazy and only begged food. He went to Kampong Cham, because his wife was pregnant, where he was told that the king was detained. That is when they told him that they “loathed the king.”
His relative Hang Hom alias Kork was killed during the purging year at the end of 1978. After this, Son Sen called him to attend a study session.
Visit to a detention center on an Island
Mr. Ang then turned to the events that took place in Krouch Chhmar and inquired what duties and functions the witness held. Mr. Siek replied that upon his arrival, the rebellion took place. Upon his return from a study session, he was assigned to draft people for the battle field. The meeting took place in Chub Rubber plantation. He asked the commune committee regardless of their ethnicities to grow vegetables to supply the front line soldiers with food. It was the only location where people were gathered. He did not know the exact number of people. There were sessions to explain people how to grow vegetables. They also informed them about the defection of Heng Samrin and Chea Sim. He could not recognize the corpses that he saw. The soldiers were soldiers of the National Salvation Army.
Mr. Ang then turned to the topic of people who were imprisoned at the island and asked whether only one boat went there that day or several ones. Mr. Siek replied that it was a motorboat and not a boat. There were no other boats. There were some motorboats that had arrived before he arrived. He went with around ten other people. He could not remember the names of all of them, but only of those who were part of the district committee, namely Ao, Oeun, and Sien. The soldiers were the special force under Khieu. He met other people from the military personnel, but he did not establish connections with them. A man named Ao held the letter and handed it over to the military personnel. They did not bring any books or pens with them. The building was a one-story building. He could not recall the length and width of the building. He did not see any houses there. He only saw sugar cane plantations, trees, and potato plantations. Mr. Ang then asked whether people called it an island or whether he saw it, because water surrounded the land. Mr. Siek replied that he could see it with his own eyes. He only saw it from one side. There were both male and female people staying in that building. He estimated that there were around 20 to 30 men. He did not know whether any delegation visited this building.
He went there to “look at it” and then came back. Mr. Siek confirmed that the soldiers might have gone insight.
Mr. Ang then referred to the testimony given by Civil Party No Satas who had stated that she was questioned by Hor whether she was Khmer or Cham while being detained in a house. [34] At this point, Mr. Koppe objected, arguing that the witness had talked about a building on an island, whereas No Satas had stated that she was detained in Trea village. The President stated that the witness had stated it looked like a monastery or a school building, while No Satas had been detained in a house. Mr. Ang insisted that he was interested in the mentioning of the name. He repeated his question to the witness. Mr. Siek replied that he did not know the name Satas. When Mr. Ang read out an excerpt of the transcript, Mr. Siek said that “to my best recollection, I did not enter the house” and did not question anyone there. He went there to oversee the work, and not the interrogation. Mr. Siek replied that Ho was the deputy chief and was “almost at the parallel level” as him. He thought he might have met Satas at the fishing lot.
He could not recall how many people were detained there. When they “were put to Koh Phal”, he knew the incident. However, he was called to the study session afterwards. He did not have “time to focus on the issue that you’re talking about.” When Mr. Ang asked for clarification about Koh Phal, Mr. Siek stated that he had not mentioned Koh Phal.
At this point, the President adjourned the hearing. The hearing will resume with Mr. Siek’s testimony tomorrow at 9 am, with witness 2-TCW-904 being on the reserve.
[1] E3/154 [2] E3/2782, at 00089714 (EN), 00095552 (KH) 00596212 (FR) [3] E3/5275, E3/30075 E3/19.3.73, E319/19.3.86. [4] E319/19.3.86, at answer 64: [5] E3/2956. [6] E3/2957 and E3/2166 [7] E3/2166, number 7. [8] E3/375, at 00360761 (EN), 00348802 (KH), 00369924 (FR). [9] E319/19.3.86. [10] 5th June 2015: E1/311.1: Trial Transcript; 09.42.40: [11] E3/2957. [12] This is witness 2-TCW-827. E3/5216, at 00225496 (EN), 00223891 (KH), 00234569 (FR). [13] E3/5275, at 00282920 (KH), 00284492 (EN), 00339917 (FR). [14] E3/1822, at 00078568 (EN) 00758331 (FR), Khmer translation pending. [15] E3/6979a, at 00452293 (KH), English summary E3/6979b. [16] E3/7690. [17] E319/15.3.1 [18] E319/15.3.1. [19] E319/28.3.1, at answer N. 10 [20] E3/390, at 00436853 (EN) , 00392076 (KH), 00479788 (FR) [21]E3/455, at 00149917 (EN), 00146678 (KH), 00149943 (FR) [22] E3/375, at 00348802-03 (KH), 00360762 (EN) 00369924 (FR). [23] E3/9324, at 00204457 (KH), 00242064 (EN), 00485139 (FR). [24]E3/5553, at 00235002 (KH).m 00235483 (EN), 00250059 (FR). [25] E3/5288, at 00326653-54 (KH), 00326290-91 (ENG), 00411588-89 (FR). [26] E3/375, at 00348796-97 (KH), 00360756 (EN), 00369919 (FR). [27] E3/5275, at 00282921 (KH), 00284493 (EN) 00339918 (FR). [28] E3/7 XX 00348804 (KH), 00360763 (EN), 00369926 (FR) [29] E3/35 at 00340569-570, 00346155 (EN), 00367727 (FR). [30] E3/35, at 00340568 (KH), 00346154 (EN), 00367726 (FR). [31] E3/5196, at 00204456 (KH), 00223088 (EN), 00274740 (FR). [32] E3/375, at 00348799, 00360759 (EN), 00369921 (FR). [33] E3/375, at 00348800 (KH), 00360759 (EN), 00369921 (FR). [34] Transcript of 29 September 2015, at 11:12.