Arrests of Vietnamese Family

After three days of closed sessions, the Court resumed its public hearing this afternoon. The testimony of Civil Party Lach Kri was heard, who told the Court about the possible arrest and murder of his brother’s wife and children, as well as other Vietnamese families in his village.

 

Relation to his brother 

At the beginning of the session, the President Nil Nonn announced that the testimony of Civil Party 2-TCCP-844 would be heard via audiovisual link to the Civil Party’s residence and in open session.

Lach Kri was born on 15 March 1947 and is a rice farmer today. He resides in Pochendam Village, Svay Antor Sub-district, Prey Veng District, Prey Veng Province.

The floor was first given to the Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyers. Marie Guiraud asked how many brothers and sisters he had, to which he answered that he had five: Lach Ny, Lach Nay, another sister, Lach Nang, and himself. Thus, he had two brothers and three sisters. His older brother Lach Ny passed away in 2006. Ms. Guiraud asked what relationship he had with his brother. He replied that they were rather close and sometimes talked about their experiences during the regime. Lach Ny was nine years older than him. When they talked, they did not talk about the Court but about how they missed their parents.

She then referred to his brother’s involvement in the Court and asked why he had decided to continue his brother’s actions before the KRT.[1] “He told me that if he were to die then I should continue his action.”

His brother lived in a house adjacent to his in Pochendam. He continued living in his house “for quite a long time” and moved to another village, around 500 meters away from Mr. Kri. Before this, he lived in the same place as his brother.

Ms. Guiraud then inquired whether his brother worked in Phnom Penh at some point. Mr. Kri confirmed this. “He used to work in Phnom Penh during the old regime.” He returned to his home village in 1968. He was married at this time. His brother’s wife was called Son San. Lach Ny and Son San had a son. San spoke Khmer. His brother had told him that his wife was from Battambang Province. Asked whether he ever spoke San Vietnamese, he confirmed this. He answered that she “made a living by selling vegetables and the Vietnamese came to buy the vegetables and she communicated with these Vietnamese buyers in Vietnamese.” She had told him that her father was Khmer and her mother was Vietnamese. There were three Vietnamese families in Pochendam Village: Yuan Ngang, whose father and mother were Vietnamese; Chhuy, whose wife was Khmer; and the wife of his brother.

The Khmer Rouge came to the area in 1970. There were Lon Nol soldiers in the village. A month later, a fighting broke out between the Lon Nol soldiers and the Khmer Rouge. Two years after, Vietnamese came to settle in the village. Ms. Guiraud queried whether she understood his testimony properly that the Vietnamese came to settle in his village in 1972. He replied that the Khmer Rouge came to control the area in 1970 or 1971. This did not affect Lach Ny’s family at the time. Nothing happened to San until 1977 “when the situation changed.”

He recounted that San was arrested in 1977 together with their son. Their son Nhim was working two kilometers away from the house, where the wife was staying. He was harvesting rice close to this house. Three militiamen came. He knew one of them, namely Ung Ngoy.

 

Call to a study session

They called San for a study session and put her on a horse cart and “we were watching the events unfold.” The four children were arrested with her. The militiamen went to fetch the last daughter who was a little bit further away afterwards.

Ngoy was the chief of security in Svay Ando. Twenty workers witnessed that incident on that day. His brother was also there. “He fainted and collapsed when he witnessed that his wife was arrested.” When he became conscious again, he left the field and went around two kilometers away from where he was working.

“My brother, other villagers, and me were very shocked.” They did not know why the people were arrested.

When Ms. Guiraud asked about a meeting during which San’s arrest was discussed, Nuon Chea Defense Counsel Victor Koppe interjected. He said that the Civil Party had used the word arrest, but also the term “study session”. The use of the term “arrest” was inappropriate. Ms. Guiraud rephrased the question and asked about a meeting in which San’s fate was discussed, which Mr. Kri denied. This prompted Ms. Guiraud to refer to a Supplementary Statement by a Civil Party, which mentioned a meeting.[2] Mr. Kri said that he may have forgotten this meeting or may not have been aware of it.

Ms. Guiraud then wanted to know whether Mr. Kri knew what happened to San and her children. He answered that “nothing made her to cause trouble to the leaders.” He did not know where they were heading to. The driver of the horse cart lived around 100 meters away from Mr. Kri’s house. The driver returned after having sent the people away. Two security guards received them at the Trapeang Pring forest. The driver did not know where these people headed after he had dropped them. The name of the driver was Try, who was killed one month after this arrest. Try was a normal villager. However, since he owned a horse cart, they would borrow it from him.

Lach Ny returned at around 6 pm of the day of the arrest. Mr. Kri remembered: “He became psychotic at the time. He felt unstable psychologically.” This continued for around five or six months. Mr. Kri said that Ny would “go around and call other people’s children as his children and also address other people as his wife.” However, no one “felt trouble with him at the time [since] they understood.” After five month, his brother “understood where [they] had been taken to.” After the five months, he did not know where his wife and children were, but he “drew his conclusion.”

Turning to the next topic, Ms. Guiraud wanted to know whether his brother remarried. The Civil Party replied that Angkar organized a wedding in 1978 to marry another woman. Twenty couples were present during this ceremony at Svay Antor Pagoda.

Ms. Guiraud then inquired about the older daughter. The Civil Party recounted that Ngoy went to fetch the eldest daughter on a bicycle. Ngoy was driving the eldest daughter behind the oxcart.

Ms. Guiraud then wanted to know about the fate of Ngang. The Vietnamese person Ngang was working the field. The commune issued an order to the village to call Ngang to cut rumpeak so that baskets could be made. He went half a kilometer away to cut the field, but since then he disappeared. He knew this, because he had met Ngang every day in the village. Ngang had a bag of clothes with him.

Ms. Guiraud then wanted to know to give more details about the event.

Asked about someone else, he recounted that Chhuy was called one month later. Chhuy “had the same fate as [Ngang]”.

Ms. Guiraud then wanted to know whether the spouses of these two people were also taken away, which he denied. “Spouses were not arrested. If the husband was Vietnamese, the husband would be taken away, not the wife. But if the woman was Vietnamese, the woman together with the children would be taken away.” This was “widely known to the villagers.”

Turning to her last question, she asked whether he always stayed in the village or left it “at one point in time.” He replied that he lived in that village since he was born, as did his parents. In October 1978, around 80% of the villagers were evacuated to Mong Russey District. The Civil Party himself was also evacuated together with his family members. “As a result, I lost my children, my wife, my father, my mother and siblings, totaling eleven members, including the wife of Lach Ny.”

The floor was then granted to the Co-Prosecutors. National Deputy Co-Prosecutor Song Chorvoin asked him to tell the Court about the loss of the eleven family members. He lost eleven members: five children of Lach Ny’s, his parents, two of the Civil Party’s direct family members and one younger sibling;

His parents were evacuated to Battambang Province, where they were killed. He did not know who killed his parents. This took place in around 1989. His wife was killed also in December. Ms. Chorvoin asked to specify the year. He replied that it happened towards the end of the Khmer Rouge regime. He confirmed that it must have been in October of the year before the fall of the regime. “By about 1990, the regime fell.” The President intervened and said the Civil Party should be clear about the year. After briefly reflecting, the Civil Party said that his parents died in October 1978.

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

 

Vietnamese families in the village

In the second of today’s session, Ms. Chorvoin resumed her line of questioning. He said that the parents died during the same year as his wife and children. They were killed at the same place. Before 1970, there were Vietnamese families in the village. Around ten families fled to Vietnam in 1970, but then they came back. They went back to their country, “because they were afraid that life would be difficult.” The Vietnamese in his village had normal relationships with the Khmer people.

He recounted: “When they came back, they came to live on the land which they bought before the Khmer Rouge regime. And their life was normal. They sold vegetables and they had good relationships with Khmer people.” After this time, only three Vietnamese families lived in his village. “During the Pol Pot regime, there were no soldiers in that area.”

Ms. Chorvoin asked why he had said that Chuy was Vietnamese. He replied that Chuy’s wife was the Civil Party’s cousin. “Chuy spoke Khmer with an accent. And that’s why I knew that he was an ethnic Vietnamese.” Asked about the incident when Chuy was asked to cut rumpeak, he said that Chuy disappeared ever since. Chuy and his wife had a daughter, who was still alive today.

Ngang’s wife went to live in Siem Reap. With this, Ms. Chorvoin finished her line of questioning and gave the floor to her international colleague.

International Co-Prosecutor Nicholas Koumjian inquired whether he ever built houses during the Khmer Rouge regime. Mr. Kri replied that he built a small house. He recounted that people did rice farming at the time. “People had normal lives, there were no remarkable things.”

He denied ever having witnessed the killing of people. “But when I left that area, I saw dead bodies.” Mr. Kri answered that he saw them two kilometers to the north of Svay Dongkao. He thought that this might have been in Pursat or Battambang Province.

At this point, Khieu Samphan Defense Counsel Kong Sam Onn interjected and said that he heard the voice from behind saying the location. The President said to the Civil Party that no one was allowed to tell him anything.

Mr. Koumjian asked about a location Chhang Neang. The witness answered that he knew the location Kmao Chhneang. He said that he saw “many dead bodies” there. This was in 1978. This was at the time he was sent to Battambang. The incident took place before his arrival. He saw dead bodies when he arrived at Svay Dongkao. “There were around 30 or 40 dead bodies on the paddy fields.”

Mr. Koumjian asked whether Mr. Kri had an explanation for why the Vietnamese people were killed in his village during the Democratic Kampuchea area. He answered that there were no killings of Vietnamese people yet in the beginning. Later on, Khmer and Vietnamese people were “in good solidarity.”

When Mr. Koumjian asked whether the Khmer Rouge gave an instruction how to the Vietnamese should be treated and why they were killed, Mr. Koppe objected. He said that the Civil Party had never said these three people were killed. Mr. Koumjian asked whether the authorities ever talked about why the Vietnamese were treated the way they were. Mr. Kri said that he never heard them talk about this.

Asked about the number of children of his brother, Mr. Kri recounted that his brother and his brother’s wife had five children at the time that they were taken away. He never saw the children again. All children were girls. Mr. Koumjian further wanted to know whether he knew if San was pregnant when she was taken away. He said that that San was not pregnant at the time, “because the youngest child was still two years old.” With this, Mr. Koumjian finished his line of questioning.

 

Background and meetings

The floor was then granted to the Defense Counsel for Nuon Chea. He said he would only have around one or two questions.

Mr. Koppe asked whether Mr. Kri had heard any “sounds of warfare” when Lach Ny’s wife was taken away, which the Civil Party denied. Mr. Koppe then inquired whether Chhuy was at one point in time a soldier in the Vietnamese army, which the witness denied. “I was not aware whether at one point in time he was a soldier or not, I just know that when he came to my village he was an ordinary villager.” Mr. Koppe wanted to know whether Chhuy had been involved in smuggling good to his village. Mr. Kri said that he was not aware of that. Mr. Koppe then gave the floor to his national colleague.

Mr. Liv Sovanna asked whether Lach Ny’s parents went along with Lach Ny and his wife, which he denied. “I did not know the parents of Lach Ny’s wife. She sold vegetables and fish while her husband sold ice. Since she spoke Vietnamese to Vietnamese customers, they assumed she was Vietnamese. Lach Ny’s children were living in the children mobile unit. They were called Da Ly, Da La, Sley Ma (7 years), the fourth child was three years old, and the fifths one was two years old and still breastfed at the time of the arrest.

Lach Ny’s wife was arrested in 1977. Ngang was arrested in late 1975 and was the first one to be arrested. He could not recall Ngang’s wife’s name.

Mr. Sovanna then asked what the situation of Lach Ny was after the arrest. He replied that Lach Ny fainted and became conscious after twenty or thirty minutes. He “became normal” around five months later, which was when he remarried. He remarried seven months after the arrests.

Mr. Sovanna referred to one of the witness’s statements, in which he had said that his brother became crazy.[3] Mr. Kri replied that he became normal “step by step” after four or five months.

International Khieu Samphan Defense Counsel Anta Guissé took the floor. She asked whether he could confirm that he spoke three times with three different people about the events under the Democratic Kampuchea regime, which the Civil Party did. Ms. Guissé asked whether he remembered having been interviewed by DC-Cam, which he confirmed. He said that this was the first time he was interviewed.

Ms. Guissé inquired about the dates of his interviews. He could not bring much clarity to the dates he was interviewed.[4] He could not remember the exact year and time.

Ms. Guissé asked whether his elder brother was arrested in the same year that his sister was arrested, which he confirmed. It was in 1977. She then inquired whether he was sure that Ngang was arrested in 1975. He recounted the incident, but did not provide any year.

Ms. Guissé then asked whether he was sure that Lach Ny could also speak Vietnamese, which he confirmed. Lach Ny spoke Vietnamese with his spouse. Lach Ny spoke Khmer with “a little bit of an accent.”

This prompted Ms. Guissé to refer to the witness’s interview and asked whether he told the investigators in 2008 that San spoke no Vietnamese.[5] He replied that he always said that San spoke Vietnamese with “a little bit of an accent.” There might have been a misunderstanding, he said.

Ms. Guissé then referred to another statement, which referred to a meeting. She pointed out that he had said not remembering any meeting and asked whether he really did not remember having attended such a meeting. He said that he did not remember anymore.

In one of his interviews, he had talked about meetings.[6] She asked whether he remembered having said this to his lawyer. He replied that he did not know about the meeting. After Lach Ny’s wife, there was a meeting about the agricultural production. Pressed on by Ms. Guissé, he said that he was sure about this. “I did not attend the meeting.” After her departure, there was a meeting to discuss the agricultural production, he insisted.

Ms. Guissé then referred to his DC-Cam statement.[7] He had talked about a meeting, during which they were “educated ideologically”. He insisted that he did not attend such a meeting.

 

At this point, the Court was adjourned. The hearing of Mr. Kri will continue tomorrow afternoon. Tomorrow from 9 am onwards, 2-TCW-938 will be heard in a closed session.

[1] E3/6927.

[2] E3/5630, at  0089 00678289 (EN), 00595419 (KH).

[3] E3/56/30, at 00895420 00678289 (EN), 00891891 (FR).

[4] E3/5640, on p. 1; E3/9340, 2008; supplementary statement of 2010.

[5] E3/9340, at 00325249 (FR), 00233282 (EN), 00225206 (KH).

[6] E3/5630, at 00891890 (FR), 00895419 (KH), 00678289 (EN).

[7] E3/5640, at 00657820 (FR), 00645404 (EN), 00034406 (KH).