Expert Ysa Osman Testifies on Treatment of Cham

In today’s evidentiary session in front of the ECCC – February 9 2016 – expert witness Ysa Osman gave his testimony in relation to the treatment of the Cham population. He explained parts of his research process and told the Court how, according to his research, the Cham were treated and killed during the Khmer Rouge regime. He also talked about rebellions by Cham people in Krouch Chhmar and the motivations behind these.

 

Expert testimony: Ysa Osman

At the beginning of the session, the Trial Chamber President Nil Nonn announced that today, the testimony of 2-TCW-95 would be heard in relation to the treatment of the Cham people. He said it would continue for two days.

Before hearing this testimony, the Chamber informed the parties that for today’s proceedings, Judge You Ottara was absent due to health issues and was replaced by Judge Thou Mony. All other parties were present with Nuon Chea following the proceedings from the holding cell.

 

Expert Ysa Osman was born on January 1, 1971. He is an ethnic Cham while holding the Khmer identity card. He lives in Phnom Penh. He works for the Co-Investigating Judges at the ECCC.

The legal officer supporting him today was Julie Bardeche. The expert was then sworn in according to an oath based on the Islam.

The President recalled that the Chamber had informed the parties on August 7, 2015 that the testimony of Ysa Osman would be heard. On September 18, 2015 they issued the decision to hear him.[1] The Office of the Co-Investigating Judges had expressed concern about issues of confidentiality and requested a legal officer to be present during the hearing. This request was carried out.[2] The President announced that the legal officer was to represent the interest of the Co-Investigating Judges with regards to issues of confidentiality and not the interests of the expert. He further stated that if a document was not translated in all languages, they should not “use in-house translations”. Translations should be requested with ITU. To avoid delays, the relevant excerpts should be read out and sent to the interpretation unit in advance. The expert may be questioned in all areas relevant to the treatment of the Cham as included in Case 002/02.[3] It was not the expert’s responsibility to determine whether there had been a genocide.

 

Introductory Questions

The President then started to ask questions to the expert. He first asked about his academic background. Mr. Osman said that he obtained a Bachelor’s degree in the English language at Built Bright University in Phnom Penh. He is now employed as an analyst by the Co-Investigating Judges, where he started to work in 2007. He worked for DC-Cam from 1999 until 2006, where he worked as a researcher in relation to the Cham. He denied ever working as a journalist. However, he wrote some articles which were published in domestic newspapers. He conducted research about the treatment of the Cham in Democratic Kampuchea. He wrote two books: Oukoubah (Justice) and The Cham Rebellion. According to Mr. Osman, he wrote these books because he “fell victim” of the regime. He said that because thousands of his people died during the regime, including his relatives, he wanted to research the cause for the killings. He considered it as part of establishing History and prevent these events from happening in the future.

The President then asked him to elaborate on the meaning of Oukoubah, the title of one of his books. Mr. Osman answered that it was an Arabic term used to mean either punishment or justice. He used the latter meaning for his book. He said he chose that term because the Muslim Cham population was from the “Arabic sphere”.

He published his first book when he started working for DC-Cam. At first, DC-Cam did not authorize him to search for other documents than those from the libraries in Phnom Penh and at the Tuol Sleng Museum. He later conducted research at Tuol Sleng, where he read confessions and telegrams in relation to “[his] people”. He interviewed witnesses from the period. The interviews, in addition to the other documents, were the basis for his book, Oukoubah. He based his research on three main sources: original documents from Democratic Kampuchea, research previously conducted by others, and interviews. The first publication, in 2002, was funded by DC-Cam, who also assisted him in the English translation of the book. DC-Cam funded the publication as part of their project.

Mr. Osman could not remember the exact number of interviewees, since he did not include all interviews in the book. According to him, statistics about Cham people in Democratic Kampuchea were destroyed by the Khmer Rouge, which is why he had to rely on other researchers. He found that approximately 700.000 Cham people were residing in Cambodia before 1975, more than 50% living in Kampong Cham Province. They mostly resided in the Eastern part of the province. According to what he heard, Cham people were gathered and executed. He did not see supporting documents himself.

 

Rebellions and Evacuations

In 1977, the Cham people were separated and “put to live together with Cambodian people”. Mr. Osman could not find any reason why the killings of the Cham continued at that time.

Nuon Chea Defense Counsel Victor Koppe interjected and asked clarification on document E215, in which the Chamber said that expert witnesses may not express opinions on the ultimate issue of facts that the Chamber has to determine. International Co-Prosecutor Nicholas Koumjian argued that asking experts about factual information that did not relate to the ultimate issue of fact were allowed. For example, the expert was not allowed to give an opinion on whether there was intent to kill in whole or in part a group, which is part of the definition of a genocide.

The President asked Mr. Osman about the number of Cham people who survived. Mr. Osman replied that around 200.000 Cham people survived Democratic Kampuchea.

Turning to the expert’s second book The Cham Rebellion, the President asked how many years of research he engaged in before publishing it. He answered that it was officially published by DC-Cam in English in 2006. The main sources of this book were the interviews with the Cham victims but that he also interviewed some perpetrators from Krouch Chhmar District. He described the six different sections of the book:

 

• The taking control by the Khmer Rouge and the method employed by them from 1971 to 1975
• The arrest of the Cham people in various villages, namely of those who were religious leaders or who were respected or wealthy prior to 1975
• The rebellion in Koh Phal Village
• The rebellion in Svay Khleang Village
• The fate of the Cham people after the rebellion, in particular a massacre in 1977
• References and annotations

 

There were two main rebellions in Krouch Chhmar District. There was one small rebellion in Trea Village in 1973.

In October, two weeks after the rebellion at Koh Phal, during the Ramadan Month, the rebellion in Svay Khleang took place. The Cham people faced death even when complying with the regulations. After looking at a list that contained names of around 100 people that would be arrested before the rebellion, they discussed what to do and said that it was better to resist. However, the Khmer Rouge heard of the plan. The Cham people had swords and used them to “cut the Khmer Rouge”. They made an announcement that they had to resist and that they “dared to die for the cause of [their] religion”. Thus, the villagers decided to rebel but they were only able to face the “crackdown” of the rebellion for one day, since the Khmer Rouge had better weapons. The rebels were arrested, gathered and put in detention centers. They gathered men who were “considered having energy, who were considered having the strength to rebel”, and killed them, since the detention facilities could not accommodate enough people. Men, women and children were kept apart in the detention facilities. Later, when they were evacuated, they could not recognize each other, since they were “so hungry and so thin”.

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

 

 

Koh Phal and Svay Khleang

After the break, the President continued questioning the expert witness. He inquired how many Cham people were living in Svay Khleang before the rebellion. The witness answered that he did not know the total number of people, only the number of families. To his recollection, there were 1240 families. After the collapse of the Khmer Rouge, around 120 families returned to the village, and not all members of these families survived.

The rebellion in Koh Phal was different from the one in Svay Khleang.  They were instructed by the Khmer Rouge to close their mosques, to stop praying five times per day and not to wear any religious attire anymore. The people in Koh Phal refused to follow these instructions. The religious leaders and the village chief of Koh Phal were called to a meeting outside the village. Koh Phal is located on an island. The people in Koh Phal were concerned that the leaders were going to be arrested, which is why around 100 villagers accompanied them. There was no meeting or proper discussion, so they returned to their village. The Khmer Rouge continuously sent them messages to stop practicing their religion, which the Cham people refused to do.

In 1975, the Khmer Rouge entered the area. In August of that year, which was the month of Ramadan, cadres from the district and the security forces called a meeting. They instructed all villagers to attend the meeting, but not all of them went, because they were afraid. There was a plan imposed in this meeting that set out five conditions. When Mr. Osman was about to read these five conditions out of his book, Mr. Koppe interjected. He said that there was no need for Mr. Osman to summarize or read from his own book. He should rely on what he experienced.

Mr. Koumjian said that an expert was entitled to base himself on other sources and explain these other sources. Mr. Koppe said that there was no basis for this in case law. The President said that he had always asked about the expert’s research, and not his own experience.

Mr. Osman then read excerpts of his book:

• The women who are Cham have to cut their hair short following the revolutionary style and have to stop wearing headscarves.
• The Qur’an shall be gathered and burned.
• All the Cham people in Koh Phal have to raise pigs and eat pork.
• They have to stop praying and all the mosques have to be closed down.
• The Cham men and women have to marry other ethnic groups and not Cham people.

 

The Cham people, according to Mr. Osman, did not accept these conditions. During a meeting, the district chief spoke villagers stood up “and shouted in the Arabic languages: ‘that is call for prayer’”. After this, the situation became chaotic. The Khmer Rouge forces told the villagers to surrender and accept the conditions, which the villagers refused. As a result, they sent in soldiers with different kinds of artillery to Koh Phal. Many villagers died. “Dead bodies were [thrown] in big pits. There were thirty or forty dead bodies in each pit.” They alleged that all villagers were enemies, and they categorized them into different sub-groups.

The President then gave the floor to the Co-Prosecutors.

 

Mr. Koumjian asked the expert how Cham people identified themselves as Cham. Mr. Osman replied that Cham people were not very different from other people, since they were all from the same Champa land. Some Cham people practiced Islam. Some people in Champa practiced Hinduism. When Cambodia changed from Hinduism to Buddhism, some Cham people also changed their religion.

Mr. Koumjian said that the Cham religion originated from the 15^th century. The expert then asked how the Cham people were able to maintain their traditions. He answered that Cham people spoke the Cham language in Cambodia, and they only lived with other Cham people. They practiced their religion and kept their names. Since they were proud of their Cham identity, they kept their traditions. They learnt how to speak and write the Cham language but had difficulties speaking Khmer. Their ancestors were from Champa and not from Cambodia.

Mr. Koumjian asked how important it was for Cham people to be allowed to practice Islam in order to maintain their own identity in a country that is Buddhist by a majority. He answered that Cham people who believe in Islam inherited the practice from their ancestors. “They will never give up their religion” said Mr. Osman. During the Democratic Kampuchea regime, they were forced to stop practicing their religion. However, “[they] did not lose [their] religion.” Mr. Koumjian then asked whether Cham people lived in the same villages as Khmer people or in separate villages.

Next, Mr. Koumjian referred to a book by Ben Kiernan, read out an excerpt and asked whether Mr. Osman what Kiernan had written was accurate.[4] Mr. Osman agreed with the assertions on the location where the Cham were living in, but he also said that they were living in other places. As for the numbers mentioned by Ben Kiernan, he said that they had to “be researched further”. Indeed, there were only a few provinces without any Cham people, such as Kampong Speu.

Mr. Koumjian wanted to know why Krouch Chhmar was considered “the heart land” of the Cham people. Mr. Osman replied that some Cham people from Krouch Chhmar District studied abroad. There were also some Cham government officials there. A member of the Cham community called Slay Man was “close friends” with a King before King Sihanouk. “It is well known that Krouch Chhmar is a well-educated area for Cham people”.

There were always hakims in the Cham community, who focused mainly on religion and not culture and tradition. Mr. Koumjian wanted to know whether there were other teachers who helped the community to maintain their identity. Mr. Osman answered that the hakim, who was in charge of teaching religion, had two deputies who were in charge of the community when the hakim himself was absent. The villagers provided them with food. The haji was also a respected figure in the village, because he went on pilgrimage to Arabic countries. He did not have a leading position in the village, but people in the village respected him, since they knew he was “a good person.” Another group leader was a me chum-ah, who acted as the assistant of the hakim.

The Cham people supported the Revolutionary Front that was supposed to be led by the Kingfather. At that time, the Khmer Rouge still did “good things” to Cham people. From 1973, however, arrests started to take place in Krouch Chhmar, including religious leaders. In 1974, there were more arrests and it kept increasing. They also started to arrest villagers, which is why the Cham leaders lost trust in the Khmer Rouge movement.

At first, the Cham people “loved the Khmer Rouge”. They were evacuated around a month after the rebellion. The persecution of the Cham people was different to those of Khmer people. The Khmer Rouge did not force them to stop speaking Khmer or to stop eating pork. “Politicians in Cambodia […] needed the support of the Cham people”, Mr. Osman said. Lon Nol was close to the Cham people, especially to those who were living close to the cities. Some of them held high positions in the government, like the Brigade 5 Commander and some members of Parliament. Cham “joined both sides of the political equation.”

Mr. Koumjian referred to footnote 175, in which Mr. Osman had said that the Khmer Sar group had been created in 1970 and disappeared in 1975. The expert said that he did not do much research on the Khmer Sar group.

Mr. Koumjian wanted to know how the lives of Cham people were affected after 1975. Mr. Osman said that it started before 1975, when the Khmer Rouge required them to stop practicing their religion in 1973. The rebellion had a further impact on how the Cham were treated.

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

 

 

Difference between treatment of the Cham and treatment of the Khmer people

After the break, Mr. Koumjian resumed his line of questioning. He asked whether there was a policy of the regime towards how the Cham people dressed. Mr. Osman said that they wore traditional attire. For example, men had particular hats, either black or white, and women needed to cover their hair, usually with colored headscarves. The Khmer Rouge also required them to change their names, which they also demanded of Khmer people. Those who were educated, for example, were also required to change their names. For Cham people, however, this meant the “loss of their identity”, as Mr. Osman said. In accordance with their religion, Cham were prohibited from eating specific things, such as pork, dog meat, snakes and frogs. The most strongly prohibited is pork: “they cannot even touch the meat”. “The Khmer Rouge were well aware that the Cham people were not allowed to eat pork”, and still forced the Cham people to eat some – even if there was not enough meat to feed people during Democratic Kampuchea.

 

Mr. Koumjian referred to an internal document of the Khmer Rouge, which indicated that Cham people had tried to create resistance in a kitchen about being forced to eat pork.[5] Mr. Osman confirmed that he had referred to this document. As for measures that were taken against those who refused to eat pork, he recounted that most of his interviewees had said that they feared they “would be killed”. He said that killings had indeed occurred.

Mr. Koumjian referred to Ben Kiernan’s book, in which he had said that out of 46 interviewees, only six had said that they were not forced to eat pork.[6] Mr. Osman said that the majority had been, but there might been an exception for some individuals “in very remote areas”, in which the village chiefs understood the importance of not eating pork.

Mr. Koumjian wanted to know whether there were Cham people who did not speak Khmer, which the expert confirmed. This was particularly the case among elderly people who did not come into contact with a lot of Khmer people. Young Cham people could usually speak Khmer well. Before the Democratic Kampuchea regime, “there were no problems regarding the learning” of the Khmer language and writing. Before this, “the Cham people had full freedom” to speak and learn their language as well.

Asked about lasting effects of the Democratic Kampuchea regime on the Cham culture, he explained that some Cham children who were born in 1979 for example, could not speak the language very well. The same applied to himself, since he had lost a lot of the language after three years in the regime.

 

Rebellions

Moving on, Mr. Koumjian asked him to explain to the Court what happened in Trea Village in 1973. Mr. Osman recounted that the Khmer Rouge made an arrest of one person in Trea Village. Aware that they could be arrested too, the villagers fled. The Khmer Rouge fired at them. A group of Cham people went to the commune office to protest against the arrest and to ask for reasons. “The Khmer Rouge did not respond to that appeal, and as a result, the protesters were angry”. They burned an office before going back to their own. The Khmer Rouge retaliated and came to arrest those who were involved in the protest. Some of them were arrested and some fled by swimming to Kampong Cham Town. This was the first rebellious activity, according to Mr. Osman.

Mr. Koumjian sought to clarify what the overall goal of these protesters was: did they try to overthrow the regime and take Phnom Penh? Mr. Osman said that “The purpose of the rebellion was to seek freedom; freedom to exercise their religious belief.” and that they did not intend to overthrow the regime. The Cham people did not have any proper weapons – they tried to resist with knives and stones. In Svay Khleang, however, they seized weapons from the Khmer Rouge and attempted to resist the Khmer Rouge with them.

Mr. Koumjian then wanted to know whether the Cham people in Svay Khleang had killed any cadre prior to the shelling of the island. Mr. Osman said that to his recollection, none of the interviewees had said to having been involved in a killing.

Mr. Koumjian asked whether villagers were involved in any other killing, referring to Mr. Osman’s book. Mr. Osman replied that a Khmer Rouge cadre Chet was killed, but in Svay Khleang and not in Koh Phal. Chet was stabbed to death while protesting arrests. The next morning, the Khmer Rouge sent their forces to suppress the resistance.

There was no coordinated rebellion that took place between the Cham in Koh Pal and the Cham in other villages. There was no outside intervention or support.

The people who he interviewed “were proud of [his] research” and glad to cooperate, since he reported on what happened to them. The interviews were conducted in both Khmer and Cham. As for the rebellion, “everyone [in Koh Phal was] involved”, he said, including the women. They took part in bandaging the wounded and burying the dead.

Mr. Osman said that if a person is willing to sacrifice him or herself for religious beliefs in the context of oppression, that person would receive the blessing from Allah and go to heaven.

When Mr. Koumjian inquired about the relocation, Mr. Osman recounted that the Cham were relocated from their community and dispersed in various areas. They had to “live under the house of the Khmer families”. By that time “the Cham community no longer existed”. The Khmer Rouge thought, according to Mr. Osman, that it was easier to monitor the Cham people when they were apart.

Mr. Koumjian asked about the relocation of Koh Phal villagers. Mr. Osman recounted to the places they were relocated to and said that the areas were threatened by malaria. Those who survived malaria were relocated again, sometimes to the Steung Trong district. There was only a small number of Cham people who were allowed to remain in the area they lived in: those who seemed to have “weak tendencies” and those who seemed not to be opposed to the Khmer Rouge regime.

 

Statistics

Mr. Koumjian read out a quote by Ben Kiernan, in which he talked about so-called Moultanh Phnoe, who were also called deportees. That term existed before 1975[7], and they were still called like that after returning. Mr. Koumjian wanted to know how the Cham people were called in the scheme of Base People. Mr. Osman said that his research did not focus on the Southwest Zone. Generally speaking, however, Khmer people who lived in the cities were relocated as well and labeled as “New People”, as were the Cham people. Mr. Koumjian wanted to know whether they were called Base People if they continued living in their village. Mr. Osman answered, it seemed, negativelt, and recounted that they were re-located. He then drew a comparison between the living conditions of city dwellers and the Cham. The Base People were able to hide food, while the Cham people “lacked everything”.

Mr. Koumjian referred to an article by Michael Vickery and a March 10, 2006 letter by Osman to the Phnom Penh Post.[8] Mr. Osman said that getting “the accurate figure is difficult”, since there was no official figure for the Cham population before the Khmer Rouge. After the Khmer Rouge, however, there were 200.000 survivors. In order to estimate the Cham population before the Khmer Rouge, he based his research on previous statistics. He estimated that there were around 700.000 Chams before the Khmer Rouge came in. As for the discrepancy between the number of Cham people Ben Kiernan estimated had lived in Cambodia before Democratic Kampuchea, he said that: “If you would like him to proof-base his document, it would be hard”, whereas Mr. Osman relied on interviews.

He then went on to criticize the reliability of Kiernan’s estimate. Mr. Osman said that no interviewee he asked knew about a survey.

Mr. Koumjian said that Kiernan and Vickery relied on a 1936 census and wanted to know whether he knew how they were conducted. Mr. Osman answered that he did not do any research concerning censuses of the pre-1975 Cham population, and repeated that none of his interviewees remembered a census.

Mr. Koumjian wanted to know whether he knew whether the interviewees were being asked about their nationality, their ethnicity, or given other choices. At this point, Khieu Samphan Defense Counsel Anta Guissé objected and said that none of the interviewees could remember any census and that the expert could therefore not answer this question. Mr. Koumjian agreed and moved on. He asked whether Cham people identified as Cambodians, since Mr. Osman had said that his identity card indicated he was Khmer. He answered that his ID card did not indicate that he was Cham, while other newer documents from the government did. Most Cham people were identified as Khmer on their ID card.

Mr. Koumjian asked whether there were any advantages of a Cham person to indicate that they were Khmer, if it would prevent discrimination. Mr. Osman said that Cham people were proud of being Cham people. The term Khmer-Islam was more popular today than Cham. Mr. Koumjian asked whether there were Cham people who were more likely to identify themselves as Khmer to outsiders than to religious leaders. When Ms. Guissé objected again, Mr. Koumjian moved on.

He inquired whether he thought that 10 % of the Cambodian population was Cham in 1975, which Mr. Osman confirmed. At this point, the President adjourned the hearing for a break.

 

 

Census

At the beginning of the last session, the floor was again granted to the Co-Prosecutors.

Mr. Koumjian referred to footnote 5 of Mr. Osman’s Oukoubah book, and read out the seven sources for his estimate that the number of Cham was 700.000 prior to the Democratic Kampuchea regime.[9]

Mr. Osman said that the number “came from his interviewees”, as well as documents given by the Ministry of Culture and Religion and other sources. Mr. Koumjian wanted to know who was Ney Pennah, quoted in the book. He answered that he “read Ney Pennah’s book”, and believed that he was a government high-ranking official from the regime established after the fall of the Khmer Rouge in 1979.

Mr. Koumjian inquired about several sources, which Mr. Osman explained.

Turning to the religious leaders, Mr. Osman explained that the hakim needed to make reports to the mufti at the provincial level. The mufti would compile the reports and would send them to the mufti at the higher level.

Mr. Koumjian wanted to know when he interviewed Sen Math[10], which Mr. Osman said he used to write his article.

 

Missing families

Mr. Koumjian wanted to know what the average number of individuals in a family. He replied that a family consisted of husband, wife and children, who share the same house. Mr. Koumjian wanted to know whether grandparents with their grandchildren would also be considered a family, which the expert confirmed.

Mr. Koumjian said that he had taken the figures given by the witnesses on the numbers of families and multiplied it by five, which he claimed to be a conservative estimate. Ms. Guissé objected and said that Mr. Koumjian should use E3/1822 for asking questions. There was a discussion on whether the document had to be admitted into the case file, in particular if the document was given to the witness. At the end of the discussion, Mr. Koumjian was allowed to present the document to the witness as well as the judges, as well as other parties, without having to admit it into the case file. He compared the Cham population of 1975 with the one of 1979 in nine villages as indicated by Mr. Osman in Oukoubah on page 120 (Akmok, Chroy Changvar Kraom, Daun Pen, Samrong, Svay Khleang, Trapeang Chhouk, Trea, Koh Phal and Peus). The witness said that every figure was supported by references, meaning a person who was interviewed. The population of the first seven villages was indicated in “families”, while the population of Koh Phal and Peus were indicated in individuals. Taking the first seven numbers and multiplying them by five (since Mr. Koumjian said that the average family had five family members), Mr. Koumjian stated that the number of loss was 19120 persons in total.[11]

Mr. Koumjian wanted to know Mr. Osman replied that he thought that the number of loss that Mr. Koumjian had indicated seemed to be accurate.

 

Judge Jean-Marc Lavergne interjected and said that the term “loss” did not seem to be accurate, since they might have also moved away. Mr. Koumjian asked for clarification. Mr. Osman said that most people died out of starvation or were executed, and only a few people could flee.

Mr. Koumjian asked whether it was correct not all the members of the 120 families that returned were still alive. Mr. Osman corrected the number to 1120 families.

Mr. Koumjian added the number of persons that had been indicated as living in Koh Phal and Peus, which he said added to a total number of 21 250 persons.

Mr. Koumjian said that the witness had indicated that the Khmer Rouge had killed almost all the population of ten villages, only four or five people survived. Mr. Osman confirmed that this was correct. None of the villagers returned to these villages.

Mr. Koumjian inquired about the village Baykay and asked whether this was in the Southwest Zone. Mr. Osman said that it was located in the East Zone. He had relatives there. When asked about Po Tonle, he denied that it was in the Central Zone and clarified that it was in Sector 25. Mr. Koumjian wanted to know what sector and zone was Khvao. Mr. Koumjian then wanted to know whether Chamkar Leu was in Sector 21 of the East Zone, which the expert confirmed. Mr. Osman said that Tuol Laveang was in Sector 42. Mr. Koumjian then inquired where Koh Prak, Chamkar Samsep, Krakor, Koh Rokar and La Ang were located in. He answered that it was in Sector 41, which first belonged to the North Zone and then in the Central Zone.

Mr. Koumjian read out an excerpt from Ben Kiernan, who had estimated that 2,000 families were lived in Kampong Siem.[12] Mr. Osman said that he had found out different numbers and that further research needed to be done. He said that in 1977, mass killings took place in Kang Meas, Steung Trong, Kampong Siem and other places.

Mr. Koumjian then quoted someone Mr. Osman interviewed, and Mr. Osman replied that they killed Cham people without discrimination.[13] In 1977, it was difficult to tell Cham from Khmer people. The Cham who decided to return to their native villages were killed. They were either dropped into a pit or thrown into the Mekong River. There was another execution site at Wat O Trakuon. The people who responded that they were Cham or from mixed families were killed in Trea Village, while a few of those who responded that they were Khmer survived.

At this point, the President adjourned the hearing. It resumed on February 10, 2016 at 9 am.

 

[1] E367.

[2] E367.1.

[3] E367.

[4] E315/93, at 00637755 (KH), 00678632 (EN), 00639022 (FR).

[5] E3/178, at 00275588 (KH), 00623305 (FR), 00342709 (EN).

[6] E315/93, 461 (EN), at 450 (FR) 00639251 (FR) .

[7] p. 259, at 01150136 (EN).

[8] E3/9682 and E3/9680.

[9] E3/1822, footnote 5.

[10] E3/9680 (Letter to the Phnom Penh Post).

[11] The numbers he indicated during the hearing did not add up: he said a total of 3838 families equaled a number of 19120 people, while 3838 times five is 19190. If the number of 19120 is divided by five, one obtains the number of 3824. Adding the differences in numbers that he had indicated gives a number of “loss” of families of 3838, but comparing it to the figures indicated in the book, one obtains a difference of 3738 families.

[12] E3/1593, at p. 260 (EN).

[13] 00904408 (KH), 00219210 (EN).