Inconsistencies in Account of Massacre
The hearing today consisted of two witness testimonies. First, Um Sun was cross-examined and provided a conflicting testimony, leaving some inconsistencies between his OCIJ interview, his testimony and Sean Sung’s testimony. Second, Ung Sam Ien gave her testimony and talked about the living conditions in her village. She gave some information on Vietnamese-Khmer families who lived there.
Clarifications and Inconsistencies
At the beginning of the session, the Trial Chamber Greffier confirmed the presence of the parties. Kong Sam Onn was absent due to personal reasons. Nuon Chea followed the proceedings from the holding cell. The reserve witness was 2-TCW-805, since the witness who was originally scheduled was not available.
Khieu Samphan Defense Counsel Anta Guissé was given the floor. She asked when he was assigned to guard the road, to which he answered that he started at 7 pm and ended around 9 pm. After these hours, he was not on guard anymore, since they “were on rotation.” Sean Sung was not assigned to be on guard duty. He[1] was assigned to cut tree-leaves to make fertilizer. He was assigned to guard the road every day.
Ms. Guissé then turned to the execution that he had said he witnessed at Khsach Pagoda. He said that it was the beginning of the rainy season. Afterwards, he continued to work in the same unit where he stayed until 1979. She then inquired how much time passed between the events and the time when the Vietnamese arrive, which he could not recall. Asked whether it was several weeks or months later that the Vietnamese arrived after the events, he replied that they arrived either a fortnight or a month after the execution. Ms. Guissé asked whether this meant that he thought the event took place in late 1978. He confirmed this.
On the day that he witnessed the events, “the night was not completely dark.” In late afternoon – after the sun fully set – he heard screaming and was wondering what was happening. “So [he] decided to investigate”, which is why he saw the executions. Ms. Guissé inquired about his schedule of his day. He replied that he returned from fishing at around 5 pm, ate his gruel and rested at home. He rested until around 6 pm and heard the screaming at around 7 pm.
Ms. Guissé asked at what time he met Sean Sung on that day, since he had said that he had met Sean Sung. He replied that Sean Sung came to visit him at his house and they heard the screams together. This is why they decided to see what was happening.
He went to the pagoda twice, namely at night and the next morning. Ms. Guissé asked whether it was thus correct that he went to the pagoda only once during the night of the execution, which he confirmed. Ms. Guissé asked whether it was correct that these people were arrested the same afternoon. He replied that “they were arrested during the day time” before being executed at night. He had not seen the people before on that day.
She asked whether it was correct that the library was empty the following day, which he confirmed. “It meant all those people had been executed.” He was next to the pagoda outside of the fence. The execution site was next to the fence, outside the premise of the pagoda. She asked whether it was therefore correct that he did not watch the execution through the peaks of the fence. He replied that he could clearly see what was happening through the fence. Pressed on what he had seen through the fence, he said that what happened was taken place in the open. They lit the scene with a gas lantern.
Of those people who were executed, he only knew Ta Khut, Yeay Ha and Chantha. He confirmed having seen them personally on that day. He saw them through the fence, “because they were under the light and I was in the dark, so I could see them.” He said that he witnessed the execution. He confirmed having witnessed Chantha’s execution. Ta Khut was executed first, and then Yeay Ma. Sean Sung was also there. “We were so frightened.”
Ms. Guissé expressed two concerns: first, he had denied to have witnessed the execution of Chantha in his interview.[2] He replied that he “witnessed the execution on that day, it really happened.” He could not explain why he had said the contrary in his interview. Pressed on, he said that he “could not identify clearly who were the persons at the time.” Ms. Guissé asked whether this meant that he was no longer sure whether Chantha and her family had been executed that day.
Second, she asked whether he could confirm that he went to the pagoda when hearing the cries at 7 pm and that he stayed until the end at 10 pm. At this point, Senior Assistant Prosecutor Vincent de Wilde interjected and stated that he remembered that the witness had said that the executions continued after he left. Ms. Guissé provided references when he had said that he had stayed until the end of the executions.[3] He confirmed this. Ms. Guissé asked whether this meant that he stayed for at least three hours. He said that he agreed. Ms. Guissé pointed out that he had said in his interview that he remained there for around an hour.[4] He replied that he did not have time to think about what time it was. He stated that he returned to his worksite when there was no more crying. He said that he returned quickly, because he was so scared. He insisted that he went back after the cries had stopped. Ms. Guissé asked for clarification regarding his duty to guard the street, since this usually took place from 7 to 10 pm. He replied that he was not on duty guard on the night of the execution. “I returned to the worksite.” At this time, they changed their guard time.
Ms. Guissé then wanted to know who provided him with the information that Chantha had been executed. He replied that he “only heard that the person was taken away. I also saw that the person was sent to Khsach Pagoda.” He saw that the person was taken away and brought into the pagoda. He did not know at what time he saw Chantha being taken away to the Pagoda. Ms. Guissé pressed on. He replied that he saw her taken away in the afternoon when it was not dark yet. It was only at the execution site when he saw her that he knew where she had been brought to. At this time, Sean Sung was not with him. He did not know who walked her away. Ms. Guissé inquired whether this meant that these men were not the same militiamen who were stationed at the pagoda. He replied that he did not recognize them and did not know their names.
Ms. Guissé referred to his testimony of Wednesday[5] during which he had said that he did not know how many people had been disemboweled, but that the women who were not married were disemboweled. She asked whether he personally saw it, which he denied. He saw the gallbladders the next day. Ms. Guissé asked why he said that unmarried women were disemboweled. He did not see them disemboweling Chantha. He said that he returned home after watching the scene. He then said that they returned to their worksite.
Ms. Guissé then asked about his statement that he realized a few days later that Chantha had disappeared.[6] He replied that he could not recall the details, since he was so scared. During the next questions and answers, the witness could not shed any light on the matter or provide an explanation for the contradiction. “My apology, I think I got confused between the days.” Pressed on by Ms. Guissé, he said that he “forgot it all”.
The Court was adjourned for a break.
After the break, the floor was again granted to Ms. Guissé. She inquired whether he had planned to go anywhere special on that day, which he denied. He denied having requested to see his family. Sean Sung had testified that both had requested to see their parents.[7] He replied that he might have forgotten that point.
Ms. Guissé turned to the next point. Mr. Sean Sung had submitted that there were no soldiers stationed at the pagoda.[8] Ms. Guissé asked whether he was sure that there were soldiers who were stationed at the pagoda, “since this is not what Sean Sung said.” He replied that it was true what Sean Sung said, since there were no soldiers at the pagoda but only militiamen. Ms. Guissé asked whether he had not said that there was a military unit stationed at the pagoda. He said that there was no military unit but only militiamen. When Ms. Guissé asked for clarification, he replied that there were both of them.
Ms. Guissé then inquired whether he stood by his testimony that Chantha and her grandparents were executed by the pagoda. “I told the court about this matter once already, what else can I say?”
Ms. Guissé moved on and inquired about the execution of Chantha’s grandparents he said he had seen. Witness 2-TCW-846 had indicated that Ta Khut and Yeay Ha were executed one day before the arrival of the Vietnamese on 7 January 1979 at Dan Ban Angdul Muon (and not Khsach Pagoda).[9] The witness replied that he had never known this latter place.
This prompted Ms. Guissé to refer to Sean Sung’s testimony, who had never said that Chantha’s grandparents were also executed at the same day as she was. He had confirmed that he did not know what happened to Chantha’s grandparents, but that he had heard people talking about the execution of her grandparents shortly before the Vietnamese arrived.[10] The witness replied that the execution site was not very clear. Ms. Guissé asked whether he therefore could not clearly see who executed and who was executed. The witness replied that he did not know. When Judge Claudia Fenz asked for clarification whether he did not know the victims or the executioners, he replied that he did not know their names. He only knew Muoy and one other person. It stayed unclear whether he referred to the executioners or the victims.
With this, the testimony ended and the President dismissed the witness. He then ordered the next witness to be ushered in.
New Witness: Ung Sam Ien
Ung Sam Ien, 63 years old, was born in Krohom Ka Village, Chantrei Subdistrict, Romeas Hek District, Svay Rieng Province, where she also lives today.
The floor was then given to the Co-Prosecutors. National Deputy Co-Prosecutor Srea Rattanak asked about her background. Ms. Sam Ien replied that she lived in her home village before April 1975, but relocated to Takeo in 1979. She was relocated there for a week and then returned. She returned after it was liberated. Mr. Rattanak then inquired whether she knew whether there were Vietnamese people living in her village, which she confirmed. There were three or four Vietnamese families in her village. They were born there. They lived in Trapeang Trung, while she lived in her birth village. It was around a kilometer away. Since she did not go there often, she did not know them well. However, “they used to carry things to sell them in my village.” Thus, she knew that they were Vietnamese. “Later, they were chased away to return to their country.” She did not know whether they were arrested or relocated.
In her witness statement, she had said that four or five Vietnamese children were arrested.[11] She now said she recalled that they were arrested and taken away. She witnessed the arrests. “If I did not witness it, I would not say it.” This took place in the afternoon, but she could not recall the time. The people who arrested them wore the same black clothes as the others did. They were not armed. They did not carry any knife or clubs either. They were arrested in a group. They said they were taken to a mobile unit. The children were around 10 to 15 years old, which was the age that they could join the mobile unit. These children spoke Khmer and not Vietnamese or Chinese. They were walked away. They were not tied up. The parents were not arrested but remained in their houses. She did not see the parents anymore afterwards, since she was relocated to dig a channel “far away” from her house. She did not know what the fate of the parents was. The national Deputy Co-Prosecutor handed over the floor to International Senior Assistant Prosecutor Vincent de Wilde.
Mr. de Wilde asked in which sector Romeas Hek was located, which she could not recall. Krohom Kar. Her village was several kilometers away from the Vietnamese border. “It was pretty far.”
Mr. de Wilde then turned back to the period of the Sihanouk era and asked whether during that time there were many commercial transactions between Cambodia and Vietnam. Ms. Ien did not know. There were not many Vietnamese who settled in the area. From the previous regime, she noticed, there were only two or three Vietnamese who stayed. She did not travel anywhere. She clarified that she spoke about her own village. She confirmed that during the Sihanouk era there were only mixed families and not purely Vietnamese family. These mixed families were like the Khmer families. At this point, the President adjourned the hearing for the lunch break.
Vietnamese people in her village
After the break, the Senior Assistant Prosecutor continued his questioning. He inquired whether he properly understood that the three or four families who lived in a village one kilometer away from Krohom Ka were selling goods in her village, which Ms. Ien confirmed. The parents were living with their children and grandparents. Mr. de Wilde asked whether there were therefore families that were of pure Khmer origin – for example the grandparents – and others who were of mixed ethnicity. Mr. de Wilde then asked whether it was easy to distinguish the ethnic Vietnamese, for example by the way they spoke. She replied: “I do not know how to distinguish Vietnamese and Khmer people, since they had quite the same complexion.” They did not have an accent. They did not celebrate their traditional Vietnamese holidays, since there were only very few Vietnamese families. She did not know whether they celebrated them privately. There were no temples or churches. There were only Khmer Buddhist pagodas.
She stated that the Vietnamese went somewhere else before the fall of Phnom Penh in 1975. She did not seen them at the time that the Vietnamese had been chased out of the city. Villagers living close to her house had mentioned this.
Mr. de W ilde then inquired whether she had to attend meetings, which she denied. She never attended big meetings, but sometimes they would hold meetings amongst themselves with four or five people. There was no meeting with cadres from the sector, for example.
Turning back to the three or four mixed families, Mr. de Wilde asked whether she never knew their names or whether she could just not remember them now. The witness replied that she never knew them. She noticed that they came to her village. Asked for precision, she said that she saw three families. He then asked whether there were any Vietnamese women being married to Khmer men, which she did not know. As she mentioned five mixed families, he asked whether there were three or five families.
She replied that there were around three mixed couples, but altogether there might have been around five, since they had been living in Cambodian for a long time and had their offsprings in Vietnam. She explained that there were three families originally, but later there might have been five families, since they had married. Mr. de Wilde summarized it at three Vietnamese families and then mixed marriages that followed.
Mr. de Wilde moved on and asked what let her think that these people were not only transferred. She recounted that she saw these people arrested and then someone said that they were sent to mobile units. They went to mobile units to work on rice fields. Mr. de Wilde again wanted to know whether the people were really sent to mobile units or arrested.
At this point, Nuon Chea Defense Counsel Victor Koppe objected based on two reasons. First, the questions were repetitive. Second, giving only two possibilities of what happened – and for example not the possibility of them having been sent to Vietnam and not returning – was leading. Mr. de Wilde argued that this was what he was trying to find out and asked the witness what the word arrest meant for her. The President interrupted his questioning and stated that he agreed to the objection that it was repetitive. Further, he stated that it was unclear where the witness had said that these people were arrested.
Mr. de Wilde gave the relevant reference. In this statement, she had said that these people were “arrested and taken away for good.”[12] Mr. Koppe interjected and stated that the English translation read “arrested and taken away.” Mr. de Wilde asked again what “arrest” mean. She said that she did not know what happened to these people afterwards. She never saw these Vietnamese people return. Those who had been brought to the mobile unit never came back. “The children went together with their parents.” Mr. de Wilde moved on.
He asked about the fate of her younger brother Meas Sakhun. She could not remember that DC-Cam showed her the brother’s Tuol Sleng biography.
Mr. de Wilde referred to her statement, in which she had mentioned a Tuol Sleng biography.[13] She confirmed that the document had been shown to her in 2005, the purpose being to find out about her parents. At this time she did not know yet that her brother had been killed.
Mr. de Wilde pointed to this biography, which had indicated that her brother was 23 years old when he was arrested.[14] He asked when her brother joined the Kampuchea Revolutionary Army. She replied that he was around 17. She confirmed that he joined the army in 1972 as indicated in the biography. She did not know which unit her brother worked in, but that he worked close to the eastern border. When Mr. de Wilde said that the biography indicated that he was the chief of a military section in 1975 and asked whether she knew what rank her brother had, Mr. Koppe interjected and had three remarks. First, according to his knowledge, the document number was E3/2537. Second, he wanted to know where it was indicated that it was an S-21 document. Third, he asked whether the Prosecution intended to use a document that he always has been reprimanded for.
Mr. de Wilde responded that there was a difference between a torture-tainted evidence document and biographical information that simply indicated the positions held.
After conferring with the bench, the President stated that parties needed to stick to the time schedule.
Mr. de Wilde said that the President had granted the Co-Prosecution and Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyers two sessions. The President replied that the Trial Chamber needed 40 minutes to deliberate on an issue. Me. De Wilde stated that this should not be deducted from the time granted to the Co-Prosecution and the CPLCL. The President clarified that this would not be deducted.
Mr. de Wilde asked whether her brother had been an officer. Mr. Koppe objected and said that he requested a ruling if the Prosecution intended to use this document. Moreover, if it was not an S-21 document it also needed to be ruled upon. The objection was overruled. If only the biographical information was used to extract the biographical information, this was permitted. Using the other content was prohibited.
Judge Claudia Fenz asked whether she had understood it correctly that Mr. Koppe objected to the use of the biography as such, which he confirmed. She asked Mr. de Wilde whether he had any information where the biography was produced. He said that it was the biography of a detainee.
Mr. de Wilde then asked whether she knew which rank her brother had, if he had any, or if he was a simple soldier. She replied that she did not know, since he went to the army and never came back. She did not know when he was arrested. He had only heard about it when his biography was read out in Phnom Penh.
In her statement, she had said that her younger brother occurred when soldiers from the East were arrested from the Southwest Zone.[15] He asked whether she knew in 1978 that he had been led away and was supposed to build the runway at Kampong Chhnang airfield. She confirmed this and said that one of his fellow soldiers had told her. He told her that her brother was put on a truck and sent to Kampong Chhnang. However, that person had also not been sure whether her brother really went to Kampong Chhnang.
Mr. de Wilde inquired where the point of departure was. She replied that his fellow soldiers “who escaped” came and told her. They told her that her brother was sent to Kampong Chhnang. She did not know whether he went on his own or with other people.
Mr. de Wilde turned to his next topic and asked whether she knew the name of the chief of Romeas Hek district between 1975 and 1979. She replied that she knew his face but did not know his name. When she was interviewed by DC-Cam, she had said the secretary was Ta Sophal.[16] She knew that person in Chantrey, but not very well. She was not sure whether he was a commune or district chief. .
Mr. de Wilde asked whether he understood it correctly that she was not sure whether he was district or commune chief, which she confirmed. Mr. Koppe interjected and observed that a neighbor said that Ta Sophal had been mentioned by her neighbor in the same interview.
Mr. de Wilde then wanted to know whether there had been any change of cadres in her area. She answered that there was no change in the commune but at the district. She heard that the people came from the Southwest Zone, but she did not know where this Zone was.
Mr. de Wilde informed the Chamber that Civil Party lawyers would not have any questions. He then asked whether it was possible for her to go to the pagoda between 1975 and 1979, which she denied. All monks were disrobed and had to join the mobile unit. There were no longer Buddha statutes. “They were all gone.” She did not know what the Cheantrey pagoda was used for. Asked whether she was shocked when the monks were disrobed, she said that she did not have a particular opinion. The monks were disrobed, since “otherwise they would have no food to eat if they were to stay in the pagoda.”
Summoning of Civil Party and two witnesses
After the break, the President announced that they would need comments and observations from parties. They had received information from WESU via e-mail at noon time today. The e-mail notified the chamber that 2-TCCP-869 had health issues and that the Civil Party wished to forfeit the status as a Civil Party. He requested clarification by the Lead Co-Lawyer for Civil Party. National Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer Pich Ang explained that 2-TCCP-869 had health issues. After having met with the Civil Party lawyer, the Civil Party did not want to testify in this court room amongst the crows. The Civil Party seemed to have a trauma in facing a large crowd of people. Due to this nature, the Civil Party did not wish to appear. They tried to contact the Civil Party for further information via telephone, but could not reach the Civil Party. Mr. Ang stated that they were not in a position to compel the Civil Party to appear. As for the wish to forfeit the status as a Civil Party, he said that the Civil Party did not mention the express wish to forfeit the status as a Civil Party but that that person did not wish to appear in front of the court.
Judge Claudia Fenz stated that even if the application was withdrawn, the person could still be called as a witness; the statement by the doctor statement indicated that she was capable of testifying.
Mr. Pich Ang replied that the Civil Party did not intend to appear. Judge Fenz asked whether the Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyers had informed the Civil Party that she had an obligation to testify. Mr. Ang replied that they were unable to reach the Civil Party and that he did not have more information. Judge Fenz asked whether the Co-Prosecution wished to uphold the request. Mr. de Wilde replied that he did not have much information now. He argued that there seemed to have been a trauma. He therefore said that he would defer to wisdom of the chamber. “We are not here to make people feel traumatized.” He suggested replacing those people who had died or who could not testified anymore by witnesses 2-TCW-843 and 2-TCW-957, since there had been a succession of deaths in Preah Veang province. Judge Lavergne asked whether the Civil Party lawyers had informed them of the existence of the TPO, and whether the TPO had been contacted. Mr. Ang replied that Civil Parties had been informed and this individual Civil Party in particular. They had met her in October. Judge Lavergne stated that this was not sufficient. International Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer Marie Guiraud explained that they only received the information today. They did not succeed in contacting her. The counsel who is responsible for the Civil Party was not at court today.
The President then turned to the next issue, namely that 2-TCW-848 had been scheduled to testify today; mother of witness passed away, so witness was not able to testify today 846 1000 need to be scheduled. He requested comments by the parties and asked the Co-Prosecution whether they were able to have the witness testify next week. Mr. de Wilde stated that they did not have any objection to have 2-TCW-846 testify next week. As for 2-TCW-1000, he did not know the name of this person and was unable to give more information. The name was provided to him, to which Mr. de Wilde submitted that the witness could be heard at the end of next week, if possible, in order to have sufficient to prepare.
The Lead Co-Lawyers for Civil Parties did not have any objections.
Mr. Koppe stated that if witness 2-TCW-1000 was called for next week, it should be at the end of the week. If he was scheduled for two days, he requested the witness to be heard also one day in January.
Khieu Samphan Defense Counsel Anta Guissé stated that they did not object to calling 2-TCW-846. As for 2-TCW-1000, she argued that this witness should be called at the end of the week and have his testimony continue in January. She stressed that it was difficult for the Defense Team to adequately prepare the defense if witness were called spontaneously.
Mr. de Wilde clarified matters concerning the disputed biography. It had been established when entering S-21. The name of the witness’s brother was on the Prosecution’s list.[17]
Back to the witness
At this point, the floor was granted to the Nuon Chea Defense Team. Mr. Koppe turned to district chief Sophal. After having read out the excerpt, Mr. Koppe inquired whether she had ever heard about Ta Sophal being linked to the Khmer Sar, which she denied.[18] She had never heard about the Khmer Sar. Mr. Koppe asked whether she remembered hearing the sounds of grenades and bombs fired by the Vietnamese army. Mr. de Wilde interjected and asked for clarification regarding the time period. Mr. Koppe state that he was not referring to any specific time period, and then asked the witness whether she had heard these sounds between 1970 and 1979. She confirmed this, but could not remember the year. She confirmed hearing “the sounds of war” in 1978 as well. She stated that she heard the bombardments from the east directions, “coming from the Yuon side.” The bombing lasted several months and people had to flee. Many people were fleeing from the shelling. They were on the Western side of the river. She remembered running away while they were harvesting rice near the border, but she did not know when exactly it took place. This prompted Mr. Koppe to read out an excerpt of her DC-Cam statement, in which she had talked about her work and said that she was harvesting rice when the “Yuon bombed.”[19] She remembered this and said that they fled from the east to the west. She said that everyone from the mobile unit fled from the bombs. They fled for around two or three days before returning to the harvest. She did not know about her brother, since he was at a different location. Neither did she know about troops from Democratic Kampuchea shooting back to Vietnam. She had never heard of the name Sao Phim. There were some casualties as a result of the Vietnamese bombing: “One or two each time.” She did not know those people, since they were in different units.
Mr. Koppe referred to her DC-Cam interview, in which she had said that there were no Vietnamese people in her village, but that in “70” there were Vietnamese people staying there for a few days.[20] Mr. Koppe asked to clarify whether she was referring to 1970.
Living and working conditions
She replied that in 1970, Vietnamese people spent two or three days in her village, but then left again. She did not know where they came from. Mr. Koppe then asked whether she ever heard how Vietnamese people were treated between 1970 and 1975, which she could not answer.
Mr. Koppe asked whether it was correct that she was working at the dam and she or her husband worked at a dam. She confirmed this. “Both children and adults had to do it.” The dam was to the east of her house. She became sick, which is why she returned. Her husband was assigned to work somewhere else. They would work in the morning, have a lunch break, and then go back to work. She would work from 1 pm to 5 pm. She did not work at night, “because I was rather old, so they did not let me work at night.”
She was a Base Person. There were some New People. The working hours were the same. The food rations that Base and New People received were also the same. If someone was sick, both New People and Base People would receive the same treatment. When Mr. Koppe asked whether both Base and New People received the same treatment, Mr. de Wilde objected. The conclusion was arbitrarily drawn. The questions were only related to food rations, quantities of work and medical care. Mr. Koppe replied that he thought he had selected the three most important topics with regards to the treatment of the people. However, he rephrased and asked the witness whether she had ever noticed a difference in treatment, which she denied. “Both Old and New received the same treatment.” Mr. Koppe asked whether he heard her correctly that all villagers were wearing the same black clothes, which she also confirmed. Mr. Koppe asked whether they received these clothes from the beginning up until the end. She confirmed that they the clothes to her from the beginning. She could not recall the year that communal dining was introduced.
E3/7796, first answer: ate communally in 1976. Mr. Koppe asked whether it was correct that people started eating communally in 1976. She confirmed that it was probably in that year. She remembered that it lasted until the liberation in 1979.
Mr. Koppe then inquired whether she saw someone physically destroying the Buddha statutes. She replied that she witnessed the destruction of the statutes, but did not know who it was. “I saw it only after it was destroyed.” She confirmed that she had used the name komtech for statutes.
Turning to her younger brother-in-law Has Phuom, Mr. Koppe asked what happened to him. She remembered that injured and carried back in a hammock. There were no other soldiers returning, so she could not ask what exactly happened. They were all sent somewhere else, so she could not tell how her broth-in-law died. She confirmed that he died in the year 1978.
Khieu Samphan Defense Counsel Ms. Guissé stated that she did not have any questions.
With this, the testimony of Um Ien came to an end. The President thanked the witness and dismissed her. The hearing will resume on Monday, December 14 2015 with the testimony of 2-TCW-820.
[1] It was not entirely clear whether he referred to himself or Sean Sung. [2] D166/20R, Record of Interview, between minutes 32:55 and 33:16. See E3/7778.1 (partial Khmer transcript). [3] Testimony of Um Sun, December 09 2015, at 14:35 and 14:26. [4] E3/7778. [5] Testimony of Um Sun, December 09 2015, shortly before 14:30. [6] Testimony of Um Sun, September 09 2015, at 13:27. [7] E1/358.1, Transcript (Testimony of Sean Sung), October 28 2015, at 13:44. [8] E1/358.1, Transcript (Testimony of Sean Sung), October 28 2015, at 10:29. [9] E3/7685, at 00333930 (FR), 00275396 (EN), 00221617 (KH). [10] E1/358.1, Transcript (Testimony of Sean Sung), October 28 2015, at113:37. [11] E3/7796, at 00250719 (KH), 00282908 (FR), 00268645 (EN). [12] E3/7796, first answer. [13] E3/7796, at 00282909 (FR), 00250720 (KH), 00268646 (EN): [14] E3/2536. [15] E3/7796, at 00282909 (FR), p. 3 in Eng and Khmer. [16] Page 12 in French and page 8 in English, Khmer was not indicated. [17] E3/342, number 5575 [18] E3/7816, at 00277274 (KH), 0033987455 (FR), 00292839 (EN). [19] E3/7545, at 00336493 (EN), 00089205 (KH), 00775800 (FR). [20] E3/7545, at 00089216 (KH), 00336499 (EN), 00775810 (FR).
Featured Image: Witness Um Sam Ien (ECCC: Flickr)