Submissions Regarding Preparation Time and Witness Statements
The major part of today’s hearing in front of the ECCC took place in closed session. This blog post therefore only reports on those parts that were accessible to the public. Today’s sessions started with a request by the defense team to be granted more time to prepare the appeal hearings and the segment on the treatment of the Vietnamese. Submissions related to the use of case 003 and 004 documents and practices of examining witnesses that related to investigations of cases 003 and 004 were discussed in camera. Trapeang Thma Dam witness 2-TCW-996 was examined in closed session. Tomorrow, this witness’s testimony will resume at 9am, again not accessible to the public. Witness 2-TWC-868 will most likely be heard tomorrow afternoon.
Oral Responses to Submissions
At the beginning of the session, the Trial Chamber President Nil Nonn announced that Trapeang Thma Dam witness 2-TCW-996 would be heard today. He further stated that Judge You Ottara was absent and assigned Judge Thou Mony to replace him until Judge You Ottara was back. Before hearing the testimony, however, responses from all parties to several submissions would be heard. The Trial Chamber Greffier then confirmed the presence of all parties with the exception of International Khieu Samphan defense counsel Arthur Vercken, who was absent due to personal reasons. Nuon Chea was following the proceedings from the holding cell.
The President then gave the floor to the parties to make comments on the submissions before the chamber would rule on them. The Khieu Samphan defense team started.
National Khieu Samphan Defense Counsel Kong Sam Onn said that they would make two different submissions: one related to the use of Written Records of Interviews from cases 003 and 004.[1] The President interrupted Mr. Sam Onn and said that he would have to proceed with his other submission. The submission related to the interviews of cases 003 and 004 would be held in closed session later. He instructed Mr. Sam Onn to continue with the first submission of the Khieu Samphan defense team.
Mr. Sam Onn followed this instruction and made a submission regarding additional time needed for preparation of the appeal and trial hearings. He argued that the Chamber should provide additional time based on two main arguments: First, the defense team needed more time to prepare the appeal hearing. Second, they would need more time to prepare the segment on the treatment of the Cham. The time that had been granted by the Chamber last week was not sufficient. The Supreme Court had provided its decision F2/9 on the preparation, but had not ruled on further oral submissions. The Khieu Samphan Defense Team suspected that more oral submissions would be heard during the appeal hearing. The arguments would not be limited to the arguments raised in the appeal, since the defense team was not allowed to respond in writing to the arguments raised in the responses of other parties to the appeal. The responses to these would be heard orally.
Mr. Sam Onn stated that the defense would have to provide more evidence in the appeal hearing in addition to the evidence submitted thus far. Moreover, the defense teams would have to provide additional briefs and submissions by the latest on the 6th November 2015 in relation to the criminal liability of the accused. In addition, they would have to respond to the responses of other parties during the appeal proceedings and respond to questions by the bench. The additional time that they had requested would be, according to Mr. Sam Onn, proportionate. He stated that it was already less than they requested earlier. In relation to the time they requested to prepare the hearings for a segment of case 002/002, Mr. Sam Onn stated that the hearing on the treatment of the Cham people had been postponed, while the Vietnamese segment was scheduled in advance of the schedule provided before, as notified on the 18th September. No expert had been scheduled on the portion of this trial. Thus, the defense was “not in a position” to best prepare for the trial segment on the treatment of the Vietnamese. Furthermore, it would be impossible to prepare adequately for the new witnesses related to the treatment of the Cham. Thus, Mr. Sam Onn requested additional time to be able to prepare for the appeal hearings and the new segment, after having heard the testimony of 2-TCW-996. He requested an adjournment between the 27th and the 5th of November.
International Co-Prosecutor Nicholas Koumjian requested to first finish the scheduled three witnesses. He acknowledged that the defense teams were in a difficult situation and it was therefore reasonable to grant more time for preparation.
International Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer Marie Guiraud stated that she stood by the observations they had made earlier. She argued that case 002/02 had to be concluded within a reasonable time and move ahead as expeditious as possible while respecting all parties’ rights.
Judge Jean-Marc Lavergne asked whether he understood it correctly that the Co-Prosecution requested that the three witnesses scheduled for this week should be heard first, which Mr. Koumjian confirmed. The President Nil Nonn clarified that two of the witnesses concerned the treatment of the Vietnamese and only one of them concerned the Trapeang Thma dam. This, in turn, concerned a pending request of the defense team. Mr. Koumjian replied that his sympathy for the defense’s team applied for the preparation of the appeal, but no regarding these three witnesses, since they had been known for a substantial time already and it was not unreasonable to be prepared for these witnesses.
Mr. Sam Onn argued that the defense team would need “much time” for the preparation. “I don’t think that the Co-Prosecutors need as much time” to respond to the appeal by the defense team.
The President thanked the parties for their observations and announced that the chamber would now sit in camera. The second request of the Defense Team regarding Written Records of Interviews obtained during investigations of cases 003 and 004 would be heard now as well as a request by the Co-Prosecution regarding the Memorandum of the Chamber E319/7/3.
The proceedings then took place in a closed session and can therefore not be reported on.
After a one hour long closed session, the President announced that the witness would be heard after the lunch break at 13.30.
Recess of the Trial Chamber after Testimony of 2-TCW-996 and 2-TCW-868
After the lunch break, the President announced that the testimony of witness 2-TCW-996 would be heard after the issuance of an oral decision relating to the use of Written Records of Interviews stemming from case 003 and 004 investigations.
The Chamber considered that the parties should be prepared adequately with regards to the trial chamber hearings. However, the Chamber held that the expert for a specific section would not have to be chosen and scheduled before witnesses relating to that segment could be heard. The defense teams, according to the President, could prepare the examination of witnesses without knowing the expert. Nonetheless, the Chamber acknowledged that additional time was needed to prepare the appeal hearings. Thus, it granted one additional week for preparation from November 2 until November 5. Moreover, the witness and expert support unit had informed the Chamber that the other two witnesses scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday this week were not available. Thus, the President announced that after the testimonies of witnesses 2-TCW-996 and 2-TCW-868, the trial chamber would adjourn until 30th November 2015.
The decision with regards to the questioning of witnesses that relate to case 003 and 004 investigations[2] would be maintained until the Chamber has ruled on a possible amendment or annulment of the decision. This meant that witness 2-TCW-996 would be heard in closed session, and witness 2-TCW-868 would be heard in public with those questions that relate to case 003 and 004 investigations being heard at the end of the parties’ allotted time.[3] This last part of the examination would be heard in closed session. To ensure that a maximum of information is available to the public, redacted transcripts of the closed sessions would be published.
[1] This is related to document E319/7/3. [2] E319/7/3. [3] See decision E319/7/3, paragraph 3(b).
Featured Image: Courtroom (ECCC: Flickr)