“He had a good heart” – Witness Describes Ta Val

Today’s hearing marked the second day of the testimony of 2-TCW-918, which was questioned under his pseudonym due to reasons of confidentiality. He testified on purges of cadres and was questioned on plans to arm the mobile unit workers to rebel against the Khmer Rouge leadership.

 

Submissions on E319/36

At the beginning of the first session, Trial Chamber Greffier Em Hoy confirmed the presence of all parties with Nuon Chea following the proceedings from the holding cell. The testimony of 2-TCW-918 would be continued today with Civil Party 2-TCCP-300 being on the reserve.

Before hearing the testimony of the witness, the Chamber wished to hear oral submissions regarding E319/36, in particular in relation to paragraph 11 and 12 for additional witnesses regarding facts in the Vietnamese segment. The floor was given to the Co-Prosecutors.

International Deputy Co-Prosecutor Dale Lysak submitted that the request they had filed was based on additional information that stemmed from that witness’s new OCIJ interview. While he had a prior DC-Cam interview[1], this contained only limited information regarding killings of Vietnamese. The new interview contained significant information. In his interview, the witness indicates that he first-hand witnessed two separate killings of Vietnamese civilians at sea and on an island.[2] Equally significant, he talks about the reasons for the killings of Vietnamese, namely that the regiment commanders received training and, upon their return, instructed the killing of Vietnamese soldiers and civilians.

The National Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer Pich Ang stated that the information was very important and sufficient. Hence, the Civil Party lawyers supported the request.

International Nuon Chea Defense Counsel Victor Koppe “although in itself I can understand the reasons”, he pointed out that there were “considerable problems” in relation to the witness’s testimony. It was the first time they were considering having a witness from Case 003. It seemed like he was the only soldier of his Division 164 who had given such a testimony. According to Mr. Koppe, it was difficult to put this witness into context, since he did not know how many soldiers and commanders had been interviewed. Thus, the broader context could not be evaluated and judged. His testimony should only be heard when the investigations in Case 003 have been concluded. Furthermore, the Prosecution had only requested three out of five Written Records of Interviews to be admitted. If the Chamber decided to summon the witness, all Written Records of Interviews should be included. And lastly, one DC-Cam interview was only available in Khmer and needed to be translated.[3]

International Khieu Samphan Defense Counsel Anta Guissé said that the Khieu Samphan Defense Team objected to the summoning of this witness. Khieu Samphan could not use documents for confrontational purposes. Since the investigations were ongoing, she would “object forcefully” to calling this witness. If the Chamber was to call the witness nonetheless, all statements would have to be disclosed. Moreover, the Co-Prosecution could have asked for information when the first interview in 2007 took place. The tendering into evidence should only take place once the investigations had been complete.

National Khieu Samphan Defense Counsel Kong Sam Onn also objected to the summoning of this witness.

Judge Claudia Fenz asked for clarification: Mr. Koppe did not seem to have raised any 87(3) and (4) concerns, while Ms. Guissé seemed to have raised these concerns based on the fact that there was an interview in 2007. Ms. Guissé stated that indeed the request seemed to be belated, since the witness was long known.

Mr. Lysak answered and argued that the initial interview did not indicate the importance of the witness. As for the issue of the context not being available to the defense, Mr. Lysak rebutted the argument by stating that Mr. Koppe had all relevant documents of Case 003 that related to the matter. With regards to the translation, there were two versions of the same DC-Cam interview.

The President announced that a decision would be taken in due course. He then handed the floor to the Co-Prosecution.

Before the Co-Prosecutors could start their line of questioning, Ms. Guissé asked whether no submissions would have to be made regarding document E319/32. After briefly deliberating with the bench, the President announced that they would decide after the break time when the submissions would be heard.

Mr. Koppe took the floor and stated that he could not find the photos as mentioned in a document. He asked the Co-Prosecutors whether it was possible to make these available.[4]

 

Purge of the Sector

Mr. Lysak then started his line of questioning by turning to the purge of the witness’s region in 1977 to 1978. He inquired when the timing of these events began: When were Ta Val, Ta Hoeng and Ta Moang arrested? The witness replied that his superior Ta Val was arrested during the transplanting season, “perhaps in June or July” during night time. As for other cadres, he did not know when they were arrested. “I noticed their disappearances after I hear of their arrests.”

Mr. Lysak asked whether the witness could remember Ta Val’s original name. The witness replied that Ta Val’s original name was Haun.

Mr. Lysak requested leave to present an S-21 record to the witness, which was granted.[5] Numbers 25-48 listed cadres from the Northwest Zone. Mr. Lysak pointed to two numbers in particular, namely number 29 (Ouk Horn alias Ta Val) and number 34: An Moang. Mr. Lysak asked whether this refreshed the witness’s memory as to the time when the two cadres were arrested. The witness replied that it occurred in July

Mr. Lysak then asked whether the age as indicated on the list was accurate: According to the list, Ta Val was 39 years old in 1977, which would make him eight or nine years older than the witness. The witness confirmed this. “Yes, he was older than me, but I did not know his real age.”

Asked about the arrival of the Southwest group, the witness stated that it might have been in July or August 1977. Before their arrival, there was another group from the West Group. Mr. Lysak asked whether these cadres from the West assume leadership positions like the Southwest cadres did when they arrived. The witness stated that they were integrated into the cooperative units.

Mr. Lysak referred to an interview given Im Chaem, the Southwest Cadre who replaced Moang as District Secretary of Preah Net Preah.[6] She stated that she arrived before cadres were arrested: “upon my arrival, Ta Moang and Ta At […] still survived. But after I got the list, both of them were taken away.” Mr. Lysak asked where the witness was assigned at the time. The witness replied that by that time he had been reassigned of the fishing unit, but that his unit remained the same.

 

Reassignment to the Fishing Unit

Mr. Lysak inquired where the witness spent his time after he had been reassigned to the fishing unit. He stated that he stayed around ten days at the fishing unit, and then transported fermented fish to the mobile forces at Trapeang Thma workforces. Sometimes he would stay 1.5 months at the fishing unit before transporting fish back.

Regarding the disappearance of cadres, the witness said that he “witnessed the disappearance of my supervisor”, but he did not know whether the other cadres were arrested during the day or at night, for example.

Mr. Lysak referred back to the witness’s DC-Cam interview, in which he had indicated having seen a list of cadres that were to be arrested but that did not include him and Ta Yoeuk.[7] Mr. Lysak asked who that person was. The witness corrected the pronunciation and said that the two names were not on the list. Asked to describe the list, the witness said that the list was handwritten on a piece of paper “and it was rather old.”

Ta Chin was first chief of sector unit, but since he engaged in moral misconduct, he was reassigned but not arrested. Later, the two messengers of Ta Hoeng (Pon and Pal) were reassigned to be leaders of the sector fishing unit. There was a letter calling Pon and Pha to attend a meeting. “That was the time they disappeared.”

Mr. Lysak then proceeded to cite the Office of the Co-Prosecutor’s S-21 list, which showed that 1,200 people were sent to S-21 with the vast majority arriving between June 1977 and May 1978.[8] Mr. Lysak asked whether the witness knew where the cadres were sent to after their arrest, which the witness denied. Mr. Lysak asked who had the authority to arrest people, which the witness did not know. “Senior cadres were all arrested, including Ta Yoeuk, and I did not know who authorized those arrests.”

Mr. Lysak proceeded to ask whether there were only “cruel” and “bad” cadres who were arrested or also “gentle” cadres. The witness said that he did not understand and that “those cadres were arrested, including cruel and kind cadres.”

Mr. Lysak asked whether he had done “anything wrong” that made him scared of being arrested as indicated in the interview.[9] The witness stated that he was frightened despite his loyalty to the party – he had also seen loyal cadres being arrested. Only cadres were arrested, while “their family members survived.”

This prompted Mr. Lysak to inquire about the brother Ta Man of the Phnom Srok secretary Ta Hat. The witness recounted that Ta Man was the other brother of Ta Hat, who had been arrested. Ta Man was afraid of being arrested and therefore sought refuge at the witness’s fishing unit.

“While he was at my fishing unit, they found out and they tricked him as well as myself to go and attend an education meeting. So I was on my bicycle halfway to Phnom Srok district and it was dark. And the people who actually came to fetch us were riding a bicycle ahead of us. […] At a checkpoint, a female comrade asked me which person who was asked to leave the fishing unit. And then they signaled us not to say anything. Only I saw what happened and Ta Man did not. When we arrived at Trapeang Thma, I told Ta Man that we were subject to be arrested. And then he asked me to flee, but I said that I was loyal to Angkar and I did not know where to go or to escape to. And if Angkar had to arrest me, then I determined to be arrested, although it might mean to be dead. And then I decided to drink palm juice to fill up my stomach before I was to be arrested. Then there was a wide vehicle, and I thought that we would be arrested, but then the soldiers got out of the vehicle and they pointed guns at Ta Man and at us, commanding us to board the vehicle. However, a soldier pushed me off the vehicle and only Ta Man was taken away on that vehicle. I feel of that vehicle and became unconscious and woke up at a hospital at Trapeang Thma.”

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

 

Authority Structures and Secret Meetings

After the morning break, the President announced that submissions with regards to E319/32 would be heard in the afternoon after the lunch break. Regarding the photographs requested by the Defense Counsel for the accused Nuon Chea, the President said that more information might be available in the afternoon.

Mr. Lysak turned back to the person Ta Youek and asked whether this person had a role in the arrest of Ta Man. The witness stated that Ta Youek was the one who was responsible for supplying rice for the mobile units. Mr. Lysak asked whether the witness knew a cadre from the Southwest called Ta Rin, and if that was the case, whether he could tell something about what kind of a person Ta Rin was. The witness replied that he knew Ta Rin but was unable to recognize him, since he did not “dare to look into his face”. Asked about his personality, the witness said that

“Whenever he came down to implement work, he was quite good and kind. He was not a cruel person. He was kind and gentle.”

He never saw Ta Rin at work and only met him once in a while. He did not know what happened to Ta Rin.

Mr. Lysak pointed to an S-21 interrogation log.[10] It indicated that Sector 5 Secretary Heng Rin entered the prison on 16 November 1978 on the same day as his 13 year old niece Chu Thon, and whose spouse So Rong was detained four days later on 20 November 1978. Mr. Lysak inquired whether the witness had ever heard about these arrests, which the witness denied.

Mr. Lysak requested leave to present to the witness the OCIJ interview of a witness who had testified on October 26 and 27 (2-TCW-996).[11] The request was granted.

Mr. Koppe stated that they had uploaded a picture of that witness yesterday, which could be shown to the witness.[12]

Mr. Lysak asked whether the witness knew the person, which the witness confirmed. The witness identified today’s witness as someone who participated in a “secret meeting” with Ta Val and Ta Hoeng and this person.[13] Mr. Lysak asked whether the witness could remember this, which the witness denied. “I have never heard of any secret meetings held.” Mr. Lysak asked whether the witness could remember what position this witness 2-TCW-996 held. The witness replied that he saw that person in the mobile unit. “I do not know his function and position.” With this, the International Deputy Co-Prosecutor concluded his line of questioning.

 

Freedom of Movement

The floor was handed to International Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer Marie Guiraud, who started her questions by inquiring about the witness’s role to generally supervise the workers.[14] She asked what the freedom of movement of the workers at the worksite and whether they had the right to leave the worksite freely. The witness replied that they had to obtain a letter of authorization if they were to visit their parents or family outside the worksite. The chief of units would issue such authorization letters. When they crossed from one village to the next, one commune to the next or from one sector to the next, they had to receive the authorization by their immediate superiors. However, they were free to move at their worksite. There was no guard at the checkpoints. The chief of the villages of arrival would check the letter. If a person crossed from one village to another without having such a letter of authorization, the village chief would “dismiss that person” from the village.

Ms. Guiraud then inquired whether any punishment applied to those who left the premises without authorization. The witness said that he did not know about this, since he did not know any case where a person travelled without authorization.

Ms. Guiraud then asked whether there was any moment in the day that no authorization letter was needed and they could have freedom of movement. The witness replied that the unit chiefs would not issue a letter of authorization at night time.

Ms. Guiraud inquired whether there were any differences between the freedom of movement that Base People and New People enjoyed, which the witness denied.

 

Marriages

Ms. Guiraud then referred to yesterday’s testimony, where the witness had said that people who engaged in moral misconduct were forced to marry if re-fashioning them was unsuccessful.[15] As for weddings, the witness recounted that he attended a marriage ceremony of holding hands at Trapeang Thma. He could not remember how many couples married on that day – it could have been around fifty. The marriage ceremony meant that if the couple agreed to be married, the chief of the unit would organize the wedding. Among the fifty couples, only two people committed moral misconduct. These two individuals had been re-fashioned beforehand. “Later on, their parents and relatives were asked about their commitments and a ceremony was organized for them to get married.” He did not know why so many couples were married. Ms. Guiraud then asked whether he received instructions to hold wedding ceremonies for workers. “The upper echelon would make an announcement that on a certain date, people would get married. Those people who were to be involved in organizing the event, namely unit chiefs, would be informed about that. So usually all unit chiefs were informed about such an event.”

 

Clarifications

Judge Jean-Marc Lavergne took the floor and inquired about the relationship between Ta Val, Ta Chiel, Ta Nhim and Ta Hoeng and asked whether “they had the same mindset or wished to rebel”. The witness replied that he had not been in a position to know who wished to rebel. He wondered why Ta Val and Ta Hoeng on one side, but Ta Nhim on the other if they were all part of a rebellion. He did not know whether Ta Val and Ta Hoeng received any instructions from anyone.

Judge Lavergne then asked whether the witness ever heard about a plan seeking to give weapons to the workers, and if that was the case, who was the source of the plan. The witness explained that by ‘arming the mobile unit forces’ he meant giving them the hoes to dig the dirt. Ta Val held a discussion that they needed to find “more weapons to arm our mobile unit forces”, while the weapons referred to hoes and knives to “attack the battlefields”. He stated that “the investigator who interviewed me misunderstood me.”

Judge Lavergne then asked whether there was a link between the cadres of the East Zone and the Northwest Zone about a rebellion. The witness replied that he heard about this later. Brooms and brides; He never heard anyone speak about it on the zone level.

Judge Lavergne further asked who ordered the arrest of Ta Val, which the witness did not know. He saw Ta Val’s wife weeping the next morning. He did not know when Ta Nhim was arrested.

Judge Lavergne also inquired why the witness was not arrested while others were arrested. The witness replied that he was told that he would be next. However, after Ta Val’s arrest, he saw the list, where his name was not written on. When he saw the names on the list, he thought that “the party opened the door for them to join the youth league.” When Judge Lavergne asked to clarify this, the witness could not shed much light on the matter.

Turning to the topic of work quotas, Judge Lavergne asked whether this quota always applied. The witness replied that this quota of three cubic meters only applied at Kambor worksite, while there was no such quota at Trapeang Thma. Judge Lavergne stated that many witnesses had testified on the existence of such a quota. The witness insisted that no such a work quota was implemented while he was at Trapeang Thma.

As regards the fishing unit, the witness stated that the fishing unit had to “find fish for the mobile unit” and not for the entire sector. “Then there was the issue of moral misconduct by the sector fishing unit and later on the Southwest zone arrived and I was appointed as a head” of this unit. Ta Cheng was head of the unit, while the witness was his deputy. However, since Ta Cheng was afraid of water, he was based in Svay while the witness was in charge of fishing and the fishing boats.

Judge Lavergne wanted to know whether the position he received after the arrival of the Southwest Zone cadres was higher than his previous position, which the witness confirmed. Judge Lavergne then asked on what day the witness was reassigned and whether anyone replaced him. The witness replied that he did not know who replaced him at the worksite. At the dam, he had only six people under his supervision, while he had more than ten people under his supervision at the fishing unit.

 

 

Submissions regarding E319/32

After the lunch break, the President announced that the floor would be given to the Defense Teams to respond to E319/32. There had been an e-mail on November 12 2015, indicating that the parties would be allowed to make oral submissions on December 01 2015. First, the Deputy Co-Prosecutor was given the opportunity to make opening remarks. Mr. Lysak stated that the motion was straightforward. This particular group of 25 interviews related primarily to the treatment of the Cham. The relevance was set forth in their annex. These were documents that arose after the start of the trial.

Pich Ang stated that the Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyers did not have any objection to the request. Next, Ms. Guissé was given the floor. She stated that as regards the 25 new Written Records of Interviews, there were three she did not object to. She explained why she did not object to three of the documents, namely since one of them had been tendered into evidence, one of them related to the witness who had appeared before the Chamber and the last one had been called to appear soon.[16] As for the rest, they objected to admitting these documents into evidence on the basis of rule 87(4). This rule was exceptional. Since the witnesses will not be cross-examined, the Chamber should attach very low probative value to these statements. Moreover, there was no recording available, making it impossible to cross-check the content. And last, the reasons indicated by the Co-Prosecutors were, according to Ms. Guissé, tenuous: Under Rule 87(4), as indicated in memorandum E118/4.4, the party should show that it was essential and crucial for the attainment of justice. For limited probative value, these statements were neither essential nor crucial for attaining justice. Moreover, there was a lack of due-diligence on side of the Co-Prosecution.[17] This application by the Co-Prosecutors was made when the Cham segment had already started, which showed the lack of due-diligence on the side of the Prosecution. The Co-Prosecutors knew “well before the beginning of the trial” of the existence of the witnesses, for example of 2-TCW-987. As for 2-TCW-987, the Defense Team had objected already to summoning that witness.[18] Documents of the Office of the Co-Prosecutors where they had mentioned the witness already that related to E3/7807 and E3/5302 showed that the Prosecution had been well aware of the existence of the witnesses. Hence, the application should be rejected.

Another example that showed the lack of due-diligence was the Civil Party interview E319/19.3.203 that should have been made available as part of the 002 investigations. If the Co-Prosecutors had considered attaching particular importance to that party, they should have requested the admittance into evidence earlier.

As for another statement, the Co-Prosecutors should have requested to put this statement on the Case File.[19]

Ms. Guissé then cited a memorandum from the Chamber that established that only in exceptional circumstances evidence could be admitted that did not meet the criteria of rule 87(4).[20] Lastly, “we find that they are of a repetitive nature” particularly with regards to forced marriage and purges of the Southwest Zone. As for numbers 13, 16 and 12 on the list, Ms. Guissé held that the application was premature.[21] If the Chamber decided to call the witness, an application should be made to accept these into evidence. With this, Ms. Guissé finished her submission.

Nuon Chea Defense Counsel Victor Koppe reminded the Chamber of a motion filed by the Defense Team that was still pending.[22]

Mr. Lysak responded by noting that “it is correct that since we filed that motion, one of the documents have been admitted”, because the defense had also requested this document to be admitted. As for the probative value, this was not an argument that related to admissibility.

Moreover, he argued that the Defense Counsel had cited standards that had to be met by those documents that did not meet conditions 87(4), while the documents that were requested to be admitted clearly met the criteria. “There is no question about that.”

In another decision, a deadline had been given, namely end of January 2016. Thus, there was no question of diligence here. For example, one person’s name came up before, but they were unable to interview that person until the OCIJ had interviewed them. As for the repetitive nature of the evidence, Mr. Lysak stated that the Co-Prosecution had a high burden of proof and the Defense challenged “every single issue”.

Ms. Guissé replied to the response by saying that they were still waiting for a decision whether to call 2-TCW-287[23] and that the prosecutors used investigations from Cases 003 and 004 to fill gaps of investigations they had not asked for earlier. The request should therefore be rejected.

The President thanked the parties for their observations. He then handed the floor to Judge Lavergne.

 

Back to Witness Examination: Clarifiations

Judge Lavergne turned back to the list of people to be arrested. Mr. Lavergne asked who gave the list to Ta Rin. The witness replied that he did not know. “The names on the list were several”, but they were not around 100 names as Judge Lavergne had said before. This prompted Judge Lavergne to refer to one of the statements, in which he had stated that there were around 100 names delivered to Ta Rin by Ta Chiel.[24] The witness confirmed that he suspected that Ta Chiel delivered the list. Some of the people had escaped, but he did not know where they fled to. He did not know how the arrests were conducted. Those who were arrested were put on a vehicle, but he did not know what happened to them afterwards and whether they were sent to be killed. Three people he knew had disappeared and never reappeared.

Judge Lavergne again referred to the witness’s OCIJ interview, during which the witness had said that his cousin had been on the list.[25] The witness stated that another cousin by the name of Toung Sen was detained at Trayoung Mountain. He visited the Phnom Trayoung Security Center, where he saw his cousin. The witness said that the Security Center was located on the road that led to the fishing unit. He went there to meet his cousin and see what happened to him. “He was not chained or handcuffed, he was ordered to break a rock.”

Judge Lavergne then asked about his statement that he often went to see his parents and inquired whether the witness could move freely in contrary to the other workers. The witness replied that it depended on the nature of the travels. He had three locations of his offices. One of them was near where his parents lived. Another location was not in the direction of his parents.

Judge Lavergne asked whether he had heard of other Security Centers, such as Chamkar Khnol, which the witness denied.

Judge Lavergne then asked whether there were arrests at the worksite, which the witness denied. “While I worked there, nothing happened.” He denied that anyone was tasked with spying on workers. He could not tell whether the workers were concerned about their safety. After the arrival of the Southwest Group, he was at the fishing unit. Once in a while, he returned to the dam worksite with fish supply. However, “I could not tell you about the situation there.”

Judge Lavergne turned back to the witness who had testified on October 26 and 27 (2-TCW-996), who had said that workers were used as cattle.[26] Judge Lavergne asked whether he also had the feeling that the workers were used as cattle, which the witness denied. He confirmed that workers were sick, such as dysentery or fever, “but they were not starved of food. There was a problem with drinking water.”

Judge Lavergne suggested taking a break, which was accepted.

 

Setting Trapeang Thma into Context

After the break, the floor was again given to Judge Lavergne. He inquired about the road that was supposed to be built. The witness stated that there was a plan to build a road from Ganang Nam Tao to Do Noi. After three days of building the road, the workforces were removed to work at Trapeang Thma. Judge Lavergne asked whether this project of the road was not extremely important, since it would have been a connection to Thailand.

Judge Lavergne referred to the witness’s statement.[27] The witness explained that there was a plan to build a railway line. Ta Val had told him that there was a plan to connect two cities. The plan, however, was not discussed in a meeting. Ta Val told him “in a normal way.”

In his statement, he had said that there was a meeting between Ta Hoen, Ta Val and himself, where they said that there was no plan to build basins. He referred to Sre Noy in Banteay Chhmar district. The witness replied that it was not located in Banteay Chhmar. Ta Val disclosed that information about the plan to build the road later on. There was a meeting before Ta Val told him about the plan. Judge Lavergne asked whether this project required cooperation with the Siem Reap. The witness replied that he did not know about it. Judge Lavergne then asked who issued the order to build such a road. The witness replied that it was Ta Hoeng. He met Ta Hoeng and Ta Val where the plan was discussed. This prompted Judge Lavergne to refer back to yesterday’s testimony, in which it had been indicated that the Central Committee had issued the orders. The witness replied that he only knew about the Central Committee after the Vietnamese arrived. The name Khieu Samphan was heard in 1975 already. “However, I did not know his face at the time. And today I could see him for the second time.” With this Judge Lavergne finished his line of questioning.

 

Arrests

International Nuon Chea Defense Counsel Victor Koppe took the floor. He opened his line of questioning by asking whether his understanding was correct that the witness never actually witnessed Ta Val’s arrest personally, which the witness confirmed. “The arrest took place at night time”. He did not know who carried out the arrest. The next day, he saw Ta Val’s wife weeping, who told him that Ta Val had been arrested. Mr. Koppe asked whether the witness knew if Ta Val also worked at Spean Sreng worksite, which the witness did not know. Spean Sreng was supervised by the Southwest group. Mr. Koppe asked whether the Spean Sreng worksite was close to a village called Chub. The witness started laughing and said that he could not answer this. There were many villages around Spean Sreng, but the village that Mr. Koppe had mentioned was not nearby. Mr. Koppe then asked who the person Ta Kra was. The witness stated that he did not know anyone called like this.

Mr. Koppe read out an excerpt of the witness’s statement, where he had referred to Ta Kra.[28] The witness corrected counsel’s pronunciation (he pronounced it similar to Ta Kro) and said that this person was a Preah Net Preah Commune Chief. The wife had asked him to bring sacks of tobacco for Ta Val. Since Ta Val had been arrested, the wife instructed him to distribute the tobacco. The tobacco came from the East Zone. He did not know where exactly it came from. Sandals were brought from the Sector for distribution to the workers. Mr. Koppe asked why Ta Val was in the possession of six bags of tobacco and whether this was something unusual. The witness replied that he did not know.

Mr. Koppe then turned to the moment when the witness talked to Ta Val’s wife and asked whether he remembered what the wife had said. The witness said that he could not recall exactly. “The content was that her husband was arrested the night before.” When Mr. Koppe mentioned a car, the witness remembered having been told by the wife that there was a white car that belonged to Ta Chiel.

Mr. Koppe said that Ta Val’s wife had given testimony, which seemed to indicate that Ta Val was arrested while being at Spean Sreng worksite. In this interview, she had said that her husband was arrested at Spean Sreng worksite.[29] Mr. Koppe inquired whether she had said this to him too. The witness replied that this was true, since she resided opposite of the Preah Net Preah office.

He did not know whether the wife was arrested later on, since he had to focus on his work. Mr. Koppe asked whether the witness knew that the wife was released three months later and that she was assigned to work near a prison in Ruk village. The witness said that he did not know. He confirmed that only Ta Val’s wife talked about the vehicle that belonged to

 

Meetings

Mr. Koppe then referred back to the witness’s DC-Cam statement, in which he had indicated that Ta Hoeng and Ta Val got along well with each other, while Ta Chiel and Ta Nhim were in another party.[30] Mr. Koppe wanted to know whether this statement was based on Ta Chiel’s vehicle being seen by Ta Val’s wife. The witness stated that this was a general observation. “To me, it seems that they were two separate packs. And that is my own view, and I did not derive this from anything else.”

Mr. Koppe then wanted to know what kind of a person Ta Val was: was he gentle or ruthless? The witness responded that “Ta Val was a kind of agitated and cruel person”. However, “he had a good heart” and was “only agitated in words.” If he was angry, “you moved away from him” and then Ta Val would calm down. He confirmed that other people might perceive him as cruel.

“But as I said, I was close to him. He might have been loud in words, but he was kind in heart.”

Ta Val was only in charge of the Sector mobile unit. He had a working relationship with Ta Hoeng, but the witness did not know what kind of relationship they had personally. “I cannot tell you whether they had any private discussion amongst themselves.”

Mr. Koppe then asked whether Ta Hoeng was also called Brother Number 7, which the witness confirmed.

Mr. Koppe then asked what the witness meant when calling Ta Hoeng a “top intellectual” during his interview. The witness replied that he did so “because he was full of knowledge. When he called us to attend a meeting, he would use nice words and his talking was smooth. So it was my understanding that this reflected his intelligence. So for that reason I referred to him as the top intellectual person.”

In his DC-Cam interview, the witness had stated that Ta Hoeng was earlier arrested than Ta Val.[31] Mr. Koppe wanted to know how he knew this. The witness said that he did not know what happened at the arrest, but only that Ta Hoeng was arrested. He was not aware of a transfer by Hoeng to another ministry, where he stayed for a few weeks.

 

Mr. Koppe then turned to the secret meeting that had been discussed earlier. The witness stated that he never attended any secret meeting with Ta Val. Mr. Koppe pointed to another extract of witness 2-TCW-996’s interview, who had said that Ta Val brought sandals from the East Zone and cigarettes and talked about a plan to arm the mobile unit workers to revolt against the Khmer Rouge.[32] At this point, Mr. Lysak objected and stated that the witness ha not confirmed a plan to rebel against the Khmer Rouge leadership in his testimony. Instead, he had said that he had “no idea” about such a plan.[33] Mr. Koppe replied that he had referred to evidence given by to the OCIJ, but rephrased his question after Mr. Lysak responded that he objected to the conclusion that the witness had confirmed the existence of such a plan. He asked whether when hearing about meetings where a plan was discussed to arm the mobile unit forces, distribute cigarettes and sandals, this jogged the witness’s memory. The witness denied knowledge about this: “I have heard [about it] just now.”

Mr. Koppe then asked about the witness’s testimony that mobile forces were to be armed and that there was a plan to run to Thailand.[34] The witness confirmed that he had said this, but that arming the work forces meant equipping them to plant the cotton.

Mr. Koppe asked who Ta Prum was. The witness replied that he never saw his face and did not know his physical appearance. He had heard of the name. He heard a rumor that Ta Prum fled to Thailand. He explained possible inconsistencies by saying that “Sometimes I might have chitchatted with the investigator”.

Mr. Koppe then referred to the witness’s DC-Cam statement, in which he had stated that Tra Prum was the Zone Committee in charge of the military.[35] The witness recalled having said this. He reiterated that he had no knowledge of a plan for an armed rebellion contemplated by Ta Val and Ta Prum. “The one who took note might have misunderstood.” He did not know the reason for Ta Val’s and Ta Hoeng’s arrest. Mr. Koppe said that the witness had said in his interview that Ta Val was arrested because Ta Val was a traitor. Mr. Lysak interjected and stated that to his recollection, the witness had not said that Ta Val was a traitor, but that he was accused of being a traitor.

Mr. Koppe read out the relevant excerpt and asked whether the witness had knowledge about any specific traitorous activities by Ta Val that they were accused of.[36] The witness denied this. At another part in the statement, the witness had stated that Heng Samrin fled with other cadres.[37] Mr. Koppe asked whether the excerpt he had read that indicated the flight of some cadres had anything to do with the arrest of Ta Val.

Judge Fenz requested clarification and said that Mr. Koppe should break the question into several parts. Mr. Koppe agreed and suggested to adjourn for today, since it was already 4 pm.

 

The President thanked the witness and adjourned the hearing and. The testimony will resume tomorrow morning at 9 am.

 

[1] E305/13.23.382.

[2] E319/23.3.44, answer 25.

[3] E3/9093.

[4] E3/9567.

[5] E3/9646, 28 June 1977

[6] E3/5657. at 00061325 (KH), 00089773 (EN), 00347356 (FR).

[7] E3/9094, at 00734097-98 (KH) 00728689 (EN), 01123649-50 (FR)

[8] E3/531.

[9] E3/9094, at 00734104 (KH), 00728694 (EN), 01123653 (FR).

[10] E3/2254, at 00086766 (KH), 007689707 (EN), 00834853 (FR).

[11] E319/19.3.18

[12] E3/9443, at 00729874 (EN)

[13] Transcript, October 26 2015, at around 15:14.

[14] Transcript, November 30, at 14:25.

[15] Transcript, November 30, at 14:38.

[16] See E319/32.1, numbers 4 and 19. The last number was not mentioned. E3/9350, E319/24.3.3 (TCW-950) and E319/19.3.95.

[17] The criterion of due-iligence was laid down in E319/30/1, paragraph 3.

[18] E304

[19] E3/8867.

[20] E363/3, paragraph 30.

[21] E319/32.2.

[22] E370.

[23]E364.

[24] E3/9567, at 01044770 (EN), 01003843 (KH).

[25] E3/9567.

[26] E3/9076 and Transcript, October 26 2015, at 11:09.

[27] E3/9094, at 01123625-26 (FR), 00728672-73 (EN), 00734059-62 (KH).

[28] E3/9567, answer 39.

[29] E3/9524 , at question and answer 21.

[30] E3/9094, at 00728683 (EN), 01123644 (FR), 00734089 (KH).

[31] E3/9094, at 00734095 (KH), 01123647 (FR), 00738686 (EN).

[32] TCW-996, E3/9076, at 00728870-71 (KH), 00731172 (EN), no French translation available.

[33] Transcript, October 26 2015, at 14:41.

[34] E3/9094, at 00734089-90 (KH), 00728683 (EN), 01123644 (FR).

[35] E3/9094, ibid.

[36] E3/9094, at 00734089 (KH), 00728683 (EN) 01123644 (FR).

[37] E3/9094, at 00734112 (KH), 01123658 (FR), 00728699 (EN)

 

Featured Image: Courtroom  (Source: ECCC Flickr)