Civil Party Impact Statement: Treatment of the Vietnamese

Today, March 1 2016, marked the second day of the Civil Party impact statements in relation to harm suffered. Sieng Chanthay described the loss of her families that she had already started to testify on yesterday. Civil Party Uch Sunlay then commenced his impact statement by telling the Court how he lost a number of family members during the Khmer Rouge regime. His statement will continue tomorrow, after which the segment on Au Kanseng Security Center will start.

 

Civil Party Sieng Chanthay

At the beginning of the session, the Trial Chamber President Nil Nonn announced that Sieng Chanthay would be heard first, followed by the other Civil Parties. The Trial Chamber Greffier said that international Nuon Chea Defense Counsel Victor Koppe was again absent today, having indicated no reason. International Khieu Samphan Defense Counsel Anta Guissé was absent due to personal reasons. She will be back on March 07. Nuon Chea followed the proceedings from the holding cell.

International Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer Marie Guiraud started her line of questioning by inquiring about the rape of the two girls of Vietnamese origin she had mentioned yesterday. She asked what effect this had on the Civil Party. Khieu Samphan Defense Counsel Kong Sam Onn objected to the question and said it was not related to the facts that related to the harm and suffering she experienced. The Civil Party did not see or know the information directly. The objection was overruled. She answered that the two victim’s mother was Vietnamese. The two girls worked in her unit. She did not know when they were arrested. They disappeared from the workplace and she asked the other workers. She was told that they had been taken away and killed. His father had told her in the evening that they had been taken away and killed. He was afraid that his children would be raped before being killed. She was afraid that one day her “day would come”. She tried to avoid the unit chiefs whenever she could and tried working hard, since she was afraid that she would be taken away and killed. This fear remained with her until the day of her father’s suicide and later until the day of the liberation. Being half-Vietnamese “instilled fear” in her, because of the fate the girls had experienced. Other workers did not talk to her, since they knew she was half-Vietnamese. Thus, she had to work alone by herself. The fear comes back to her whenever she thinks about this.

 

Arrests of her brothers

Turning to her last question, Ms. Guiraud asked about her brothers’ fate. Her older brother Chantha was a second lieutenant during the Lon Nol regime. He was arrested in Prasat commune. He was accused of cutting a tree and that he did not know how to plough the field. By accident, he wounded a cow’s leg. They tied him behind a bicycle and whipped him. He was taken to the district office. She did not dare telling this to her mother and father, since she did not want to worsen her mother’s sickness. She could hardly identify him, since there was blood all over his body, but she recognized his voice. He asked her to tell their parents that he was taken away. This fear remains with her today. She is terrified whenever she sees someone catching a thief.

Her other brother was also a lieutenant. He had a numb thumb, which was why he could not work during the rainy season on the rice field. He asked to be able to work on the dry field. She overheard the Khmer Rouge talking about how it would be no loss if he was taken away. Her older brother was terrified upon hearing this and she and her family cried. She believed the same thing happened to many other families. “I want the Cambodian people and the international community to understand the terrible hardship we went through”. During the harvest season 1977, she harvested rice, which she would usually do with her brother. One day, her brother did not come to work, but she was prevented from asking questions to her unit chief. When returning home, she saw her mother and father weeping. Her mother said that her brother had been asked to “carry stuff for the militia”. During this time, this meant that the person was taken away and killed. Her brother had taken off his new clothes and only wore old clothes when he left. There was a piece of cloth on her brother’s clothes, which signaled that he was in a mourning state about his wife. Four men took him away. They brought the knife that killed her brother and cleaned it in the kitchen. They spoke about the killing of her elder brother. “My mother was so shocked for the loss of my elder brother”. This happened repeatedly in 1977. The wife of his elder brother delivered a baby. Three days after this, she died from infection. Not long after her older brother was killed, her father committed suicide, and not long after her other brother was killed. Her mother stayed in the house for three months. They sometimes brought food to her. She observed that her mother was sometimes “in a lost state of mind” even after the liberation. This remained with her until the day she died. Every time she thinks about this “without knowing, the tears drop”. At this point, Ms. Guiraud announced that they had concluded their questions.

 

Treatment of the Vietnamese

The floor was granted to the Co-Prosecution. National Deputy Co-Prosecutor Seng Leang asked her where she lived before the Khmer Rouge took power. She answered that they lived in Russey Prey Village, Chorm Long Commune, Svay Rieng Province. Her father was ethnically Vietnamese as well, but used other person’s surname and was employed as a civil servant in the country. Only her father could speak Vietnamese, but the rest of the family could not. She had eight siblings (Chan Thorn, Chruk Chantha, Chruk Chantyda, Chruk Chanthyvy, who were all older, and her younger siblings Toeung Chad Ny, Chruk Chanthy and Han Mony).

Everyone knew that they were ethnically Vietnamese, since her father had a fair complexion and looked Vietnamese. There were only three Vietnamese families, including her family. The Khmer Rouge did not do anything to search who was Vietnamese, since they knew in advance which family was half-blooded. They had the same food as the other villagers. Asked again, she did not know whether others had sufficient food. Sometimes she would share the food with her siblings and father. She had said in her interview that her family did not receive the same food ration, because they were half-blooded Vietnamese.[1] She answered that they received very minimal amount of rice, but later on, the food ration was better. The situation was getting worse when the Vietnamese offenses took place. They were accused of having a Khmer body but a Vietnamese mind. Her father was terrified and believed that his children would survive once he committed suicide. She believed that it was true that they survived because of their father’s suicide.

Mr. Leang inquired how many family members there were in the other Vietnamese families. There were six in the first and three in the other. He then inquired about her brothers Chruk Chan Thorn and Chruk Chantha. Chruk Chan Thorn lived in Phnom Penh and Chruk Chantha was a soldier in Svay Rieng. After 17 April 1975, he lived with his wife in Salarieng Commune. They told the Khmer Rouge that they had been former police men. A month later, Chan Thorn was asked to join a study session, while Chantha went to live with his wife.

Turning back to the other Vietnamese families, he wanted to know whether it was true that the two other Vietnamese families had been killed, which she confirmed. The villagers had said so. She never saw them again. The chief of the cooperative knew that her grandparents were ethnically Vietnamese.

Her elder sister was in her early twenties at the time. He asked whether it was correct that her sister was forced to marry, which she confirmed. The man proposed the marriage to her, but she did “not love him”. Since she was afraid of being taken away and killed, she accepted the proposal. Before the wedding ceremony, she decided not to attend it, since she “hated that wedding”, but her mother begged her to attend it out of fear that Ms. Chanthy would be taken away and killed. Her older sister was asked to hold hands with the man and voice their commitments. She did not like the wedding, since it was not a solemn declaration and it “was so quiet.”

Mr. Leang read out an excerpt in which she had said that she did not like the wedding, since she thought that she would have to marry someone one day as well.[2] The Civil Party confirmed this.

 

The floor was then given to the Nuon Chea Defense Team. National Defense Counsel Liv Sovanna read out a part of yesterday’s testimony, in which she had said that her brother returned after the six months study session. She repeated that one of her brothers was sent for re-education, while her other brother went to live with his wife. The latter was separate from them, which is why he was not sent for re-education.

Chan Thorn was killed first. Later, Chantha was killed where he was detained. Chan Thorn was killed in the harvest season of 1977 in Tuol Smuon. Chantha lived in the village and commune of his wife. He cut trees there. She said the killing was related, since they knew that the Khmer Rouge knew that they were former soldiers. The people who were taken away with Chan Thorn were all former soldiers. When Mr. Sovanna pressed on the issue, Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer Pich Ang intercepted and said that the summary had not been correct: she had said that they were taken away and killed, because they committed a mistake in combination with their former occupation. She said that many former soldiers and teachers were in the area – some of them were singled out and arrested. This is why she concluded that her brother and the other three people were arrested on that day. Her older brother was singled out because of his former profession and because he was accused of being lazy. She did not know about the other soldiers in particular.

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

 

Arrests and killings of other Vietnamese families

After the break, the floor was granted again to Liv Sovanna. He inquired about the treatment of the former Lon Nol officials. She did not know whether there was any meeting before her brother was sent to re-education. Mr. Sovanna then inquired about the other Vietnamese families. She did not know the husband. She knew the wife of the major, who was named Thon, but she never met Thon. In the other family, the wife was Vietnamese. The husband was taken away to be killed first, a few days after which the wife and children were also taken away. She did not remember their surnames. Bong Thy, Bong Tho and Mao were Thorn’s daughters. Her father witnessed the rape incident. She heard from the villagers what happened to the other family members. Her father was afraid that his daughters would be the same like the two children of the other family.

Mr. Sovanna read out an excerpt in which she had talked about her ancestors.[3] She said that her grandparents were ethnically Vietnamese but lived in Cambodia. Her Supplementary Information form was not correct that stated that her grandmother married an ethnically Khmer woman.

Mr. Sovanna turned to the marriage of her sister. Ms. Chanthay said that they were still married and had children together, “but her husband caused her suffering.” Her sister suffered because of the marriage. They had eight children, but one of them passed away. She did not know who her sister’s husband proposed to. She only heard that he had proposed to Angkar. Her mother told her about the proposal before the marriage took place. Her mother urged her to attend the wedding, since she would be taken away and killed otherwise. Her sister had told her that she did not love the man. She was afraid of Angkar and did not tell anything about the husband after the wedding, “because everything already happened, so we simply did our routine.” When asked why she had told the Court that her sister was forced to marry, she answered that she had already said that her sister had told her that she did not love the man.

At this point, the floor was granted to Khieu Samphan Defense Team, but he did not have any questions to put to the Civil Party.

Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer Pich Ang said that the Civil Party had questions to put to the accused through the President.

 

Ms. Chanthay said that she wondered:

Why the Democratic Kampuchea killed the people and why they discriminated against other ethnicities, including the Cham, the Vietnamese and the Chinese, who lived through the regime. And my second question is why didn’t they take their Victory Day, the 17 April 1975, to develop the country in a leap-forward fashion, as they usually said it in their slogan? That is all Mr. President, thank you.

The President informed the Civil Party that the co-accused continued to exercise their right to remain silent. He then thanked the Civil Party and dismissed her. Next, the President ordered to usher in the next Civil Party 2-TCCP-259.

 

Civil Party Khaung Moy

Civil Party Khaung Moy is 58 years old and lives in Srae Cham Village in Kampot Province.The floor was first given to the Civil Party lawyers. Lor Chunthy from Legal Aid of Cambodia asked her to describe the events that happened during the period of Democratic Kampuchea. She said she was in Koh Se before 1975, but was transferred elsewhere. She was working around Prey Nup Pagoda. One day, she returned home, but did not find her family anymore. An older person told her that her mother had been taken away and killed. The mother had shouted to the neighbors that they should tell them that she had been taken away. Her mother was taken away and killed together with her siblings. This totaled a number of eight people.[4] She was told that she was crying and shouting when they took her mother away. “I wept so hard when I heard that news.” As a result, she lost more than ten family members and was by herself. When returning to the mobile unit, she asked the unit chief to go to her brother’s place to tell him that their family had been taken away. When arriving there, she could not find her brother either and was told that he had been taken away and killed a long time ago. A worker told her to stop weeping, since she would be taken away and killed otherwise. An old man called Chhrun told her that her parents were taken away and killed. They had been accused of being Chinese and Vietnamese. The next morning she had to return to her unit. Nothing would be able to replace her parents. She saw her aunts and uncles in her village, which reminds her of her parents and makes her cry. Her parents were accused of having Chinese and Vietnamese blood and of having spoken Khmer with an accent. “And this was why they were taken away and killed.” Her father was Chinese and her mother Vietnamese. There were 13 family members that she lost, including her parents, siblings, nephews, aunts and uncles. His older brother and wife had six children. Her cousins had five to six family members in the family that were taken away on that day. Her cousin’s wife had no place to live, which is why she went with the others. Her older sister was also half-Chinese half-Vietnamese. She was told that they were told they had been taken to a prison in Koh Kyang village in Srae Cham commune.

Her cousin’s wife had not been taken away, but she went along with her husband and family members, since “there was no point in her living”, since she was alone. Mr. Chunthy then asked whether she received a warning if she continued weeping. Ms. Muoy answered that her brother had also been taken away and killed when she went to see him. She did not dare to weep in public, but wept quietly and kept on working very hard “so that I could survive.” She said that people had told her that she was fortunate to have survived, being a daughter of a Vietnamese-Chinese family.

They told them that the children of a Vietnamese would be taken away and killed after the mother had been taken away and killed. She was in the female mobile unit, which is why she was not in the same unit as her brother. When realizing that her younger brother had been taken away as well, “I felt so lonely”, she said. There was a “Free Unit” or “liberal unit”. Any person who was put in that unit “would be killed.” People would be sent there when someone opposed Angkar.

Mr. Chunthy inquired whether the events still had an impact on her presently. She answered that whenever she saw her family, including aunts and uncles, who had reunited with their families, she felt sad: she did not have any family members anymore. Every time that there is a ceremony, she thinks of her family members, she said. She also thought about them sometimes when she heard a sad song. “I don’t want anyone to go through the experience that I went through”.

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

 

Arrests of her family

After the lunch break, the floor was given to the Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyers to resume their questions. Mr. Chunthy said he had two last questions. They were related to the information that she received when she got back home: What was she told about the fact that her parents had been arrested together with her siblings and where were they sent to? She answered that she was told that her parents were sent back to Vietnam. She was told that they had to back their belongings to go back to Vietnam. As his last question, Mr. Chunthy wanted to know whether she was asked to get married during the Khmer Rouge period. She replied that the chief of her mobile unit asked her to get married, but she said that she was not mature yet and she did not want to get married yet. Four couples in her unit were asked to get married, while some of them refused to get married. Since the Khmer Rouge knew that some of them denied to get married, they were taken away and killed. She was sent to Ta Nay later, where she worked on a rice field and stayed until the Liberation Day. With this, Mr. Chunthy concluded his line of questions.

The International Assistant Prosecutor Andrew Boyle directed the questioning to Koh Se and asked when they were moved to Srae Cham. She said that the Khmer Rouge first sent her to a school in Prey Nub, after which she was sent to Srae Cham. The Khmer Rouge evacuated her from Koh Se and instructed her to stay in a school until 1975 or 1976, after which she was sent to Srae Kraom. The Khmer Rouge were armed. If she had not left, she would have been killed. Although the location was close to Vietnam, they were told that they could have a small business by selling coffee and noodles. Her mother told him that she was born originally in Vietnam, while her father was born in Cambodia. Everyone was aware that they were a mixed family. Her father could not speak Khmer clearly and could speak Chinese. The morning that she learned that her mother had been taken away, she was “mistreated”, she said, and recounted that she received insufficient food to eat. “I had only watery gruel. I was mistreated because of the fact I was half-blooded Vietnamese”. She did not think that she would survive the regime at the time. Members of the mobile units could only have watery porridge and were deprived of clean water.

 

Meetings

Meetings would be held not very often. They encouraged them to be active in their work. The discussion during the meetings was also sometimes about the Vietnamese. She was instructed to try to speak Khmer more clearly. The meetings took place after 7 pm. They were bitten by mosquitoes sometimes. The villagers left her a message that she had to take care of herself. “I do not really want to recall the fate of my mother […]. I have no parents, no relatives, no siblings now. I lost everything, including money. I am poor.” Mr. Boyle apologized for asking questions about difficult subjects. He then asked whether she recalled the year that she tried to visit her family. She replied that it was in 1978. “I was crying so loudly in the street, and I asked everyone for help”, she told the Court. “I know that they died. I was crying along the way when I came back.” She further recounted that: “I dreamt that my mother had become a crocodile, and I believe from that dream that my mother maybe [was] dropped into the water.” She said that she did not want to remember her mother’s fate.

She did not know the names of the militiamen, but knew that four or five militiamen came with them. Mr. Boyle then wanted to know whether she knew if the Khmer Rouge compiled lists about minorities in Prey Nup. She said that she was not sure and that she might have forgotten about this.

 

Lists

Mr. Boyle read an excerpt of two people who were in Prey Nup, who said that he saw “truckloads of people” being arrested at Koh Kyang Prison and who talked about the compilation of lists of Vietnamese and Cham people.[5]

Mr. Sam Onn objected and said that the quote was too lengthy. Second, the question by the Co-Prosecutor was too general. Moreover, she lived in Koh Se and not Koh Kyang. Mr. Boyle requested to be able to put the question to the Civil Party. After conferring with the bench for several minutes, the objection was overruled. Mr. Boyle repeated the question. The Civil Party replied that she did not know about this matter, since she only focused on “working hard”. Mr. Boyle requested extension of time of ten minutes to conclude his line of questioning, which was granted.qu

She only knew that her family members were sent to Koh Kyang. He then read out an excerpt of her interview and asked whether this refreshed her memory that the security center was run by Division 1.[6] Mr. Sam Onn objected again, saying that the questioning should be focused on the suffering and not facts. The objection was sustained. The President referred the Co-Prosecutors to E315/1 and said that the questioning of Civil Party was limited to facts related to the closing order. They had been given leeway yesterday, since they had asked about the general policy, while today’s question was not related to a policy. Mr. Boyle explained that this security center was run by a witness who was called by the Chamber. She asked to be allowed to put questions to the Civil Party about this security center. The President rejected this request. Mr. Boyle wanted to know whether the Civil Party had heard the Khmer Rouge discuss any policy towards the Vietnamese. She replied that she heard that her mother would be killed after having been taken away, because she was of Vietnamese or Chinese origin. She heard this from Vin Sorn, who was in charge of an elderly unit. She heard him talking about it. He heard that people were taken away and smashed in her village. With this, Mr. Boyle finished his line of questioning.

The Defense Team for Nuon Chea commenced their line of questioning by turning to her time at Koh Ses.

Due to some technical difficulties, the hearing was interrupted and the break taken earlier than usual.

After the last break and the technical issues resolved, the floor was given back to Liv Sovanna. He said that his first group of question referred to the evacuation from Koh Ses. He wanted to know how many families lived on Koh Ses before 1975. She answered that there were around 50 families, including the soldiers. There were different types of people, including ethnic Khmer, Vietnamese and Chinese. They were told that they had to leave to Srae Cham if they did not want to be shot dead.

 

Fate of her siblings

Mr. Sovanna wanted to know how Chhrun and his wife were related to her. She answered that he was living close to her house in Srae Cham. They were in the same unit. To refresh her memory, he quoted her testimony in which she had said that she went to her uncle’s house after she could not find her mother.[7] She replied that this uncle was living close to her mother’s house. An Phorn was the wife of Chhrun. She lived close to her mother’s house. Mr. Sovanna wanted to know whether her parents had siblings living in Democratic Kampuchea. She replied that her mother had relatives living in Vietnam. As for her father, some of his relatives had died in Thmor Sar. All of his relatives passed away until now. Her cousin’s family, her elder relatives and her family were Vietnamese. Some of these people had been killed. Some went to live elsewhere. Mr. Sovanna wanted to know why a sibling was sent to the so-called “Free Unit”. She replied that he or she was living close to her location, around 200 meters away. Her older sibling was accused of “having a free mind”. She believed that this sibling died there. The people in this unit were assigned to grow sweet potatoes. They had to go to work even when not having enough food. After they had been sent into the “Free Unit”, “they died.” She said that “you could ask elderly people about that so-called Free Unit”. The Khmer Rouge were “brutal and cruel”. She told him that “no matter how hard we worked, it was up to them” to put them in whatever unit they wanted to. She did not tell her unit chief that she had a Vietnamese mother, but rather focused on work. She did not dare to tell him that she had a Vietnamese mother, but she did not know whether he knew this.

Mr. Sovanna wanted to know whether Chinese minorities were arrested and received the same fate as her father. She replied that the Chinese people were also taken away. Khmer people with Chinese ancestors would also be taken away. After 1979, she went to Vietnam. Her uncle or aunt told her that if she still lived in Cambodia, she would be in the same situation when it “happened in Pol Pot time”, so she was encouraged to go back to Vietnam.

Mr. Sovanna further inquired who encouraged her to speak Khmer more clearly. She replied that her co-workers felt pity for her and told her that she should not cry any longer and that she had to try to work hard. The child of another Vietnamese woman from the 100-member unit also worked really hard, even when the parents were taken away.

Her husband was born in the year of the dragon. He passed away when he was 56, which she said was more than ten years ago. Her husband was half-Chinese. He did not have Vietnamese ancestors.

Turning to his next topic, Mr. Sovanna inquired about the food ration for Khmer and Vietnamese people. After returning from work, they could only have a ladle of porridge, she recounted. Sometimes they would have salt with the gruel that they had hidden before. Her co-workers received the same food as her.

Next, Mr. Sovanna asked who asked her to get married. She answered that it was her unit chief who asked her to do so, whom she had said that she was not “mature” yet. There were some couples who “did not get along together”, who were taken away and killed as a consequence. When she refused, she was asked to go to Ta Nay with earth carrying baskets with four or five others. At one particular time, she saw that four or five couples had been taken out. She heard that some couples had been sent away and killed after they did not get along well after their marriage. She did not receive disciplinary sanctions, but was sent to Ta Nay to make baskets.

Mr. Sovanna referred to her statement, in which she had said that she came back to her aunt.[8] She answered that she referred to that person as aunt, since she lived nearby. She was half-Vietnamese.

The Khieu Samphan Defense Team did not have any questions.

The Civil Party was then given opportunity to put questions to the accused.

 

I had a chick. I took care of that chick and when that chick died I felt pain in my heart. I … suffered much from that bad experience. Every time that I hold ceremonies I feel pain in my heart. In my culture, we keep the holder of incents so that we could think of the dead people. And it is my proposal that this regime should not make these things happen.

 

The President informed Ms. Chanthy that the co-accused exercised their right to remain silent and could not be compelled to answer the questions. The President then ordered to usher in 2-TCCP-1014.

 

Uch Sunlay was born on 2 October 1948, in Kroh Ches Commune, Kroh Ches District. The floor was granted to Civil Party lawyer Ven Pov. He said that he had mentioned in his Civil Party application that he lost 14 family members in total, which included his wife, three of his children, uncles and aunts. According to the Civil Party application, all of these were half-Vietnamese. Mr. Sunlay said that he lost in total 14 family members, including his father- and mother-in-law, his wife, who could not speak Vietnamese. He also lost his wife’s younger sister. When the Khmer Rouge occupied the area, they organized the cooperatives and units. He was assigned to Koh 2. Someone told him that his father believed too much in religion and that this was why he was arrested and “sent to meet Buddha”. He was arrested for lighting incents for Buddha. His other family members were killed and pushed into the pits near the river bank. Later, the riverbank was flooded and their bones fell into the water. Villagers told him that it was “pitiful” that his children were killed by being hit against a tree trunk. They told them to “prepare [their] emotions”. The cooperative chief Moeun said that they all had to fulfill a great task for Angkar. Moeun had said that they had to get rid of this “wounded flesh” when referring to their wives. He heard about the “purge” and “smash” and he used the word “cutting away the wounded flesh”. Moeun had further said that they had to maintain high sacrifice. He suffered a lot, since he had “long and good memories” with his family. Thus, “all of this suffering and harm could not be forgotten.” Despite the “river water flew and taken away their bones with the water, but I could never forget this. I suffered a lot. And I would like for apology and understanding from the Chamber that I told about my suffering. And what was even worse was that the Khmer Rouge distributed the clothes from those people they killed from the cooperatives. And I saw the clothes from my children and wife. And people in the cooperative could identify through the clothes that my wife and children had been killed.” he subsequently could not eat and drink anymore, because he suffered too much. He attempted not to meet anyone anymore. They could not see that they suffered or had “emotional problems”, he said. After his family had been killed, the cooperative chief whispered to him that there had been a letter sent to the cooperative and that he had to be careful. He became very frightened when he heard about this letter.

He woke up when he heard the mice running in the house and trembled, since he knew that there were militiamen patrolling the area at night time.

“At every […] meeting, they always raised the point of smashing the capitalist class, the feudalist class, and the oppressing class.” He was transferred to Krom. He remembered all of this suffering “until now”. “After 7 January 1979, I saw other people reuniting with their family, but not for me.” After the Khmer Rouge took away his mother-in-law, 11 couples were asked to get married and he was told that he used to be a teacher, so he was responsible for arranging the wedding ceremony by placing on the wall a photo of the sickle and hammer. He saw the presence of his father-in-law in the meeting. A few months after his mother-in-law had been killed, Angkar arranged the marriage for his father-in-law. “So the pain in my heart was compounded by that experience. So I feel pain, so much pain in my heart.” During the wedding, couples were asked to adhere to the policy lines of Democratic Kampuchea. He felt sorry for his father-in-law, since he was forced to re-marry. He was told that the revolution could not stop mid-way, but had to continue. “I was always criticized: you lie, teacher lie” and told to stop being in the old regime with his mind. Many cadres had been killed by the Northeast cadres, and later on these were killed by the Southwest cadres.

 

In relation to the execution of Vietnamese people, they “did not talk much. There were trucks to transport them back to their country. “I did not see my relatives off.” He knew that the people who had been sent to that pagoda had to board a truck in order to go back home. “No announcement was made prior to that incident.”

He felt “hopeless” after the regime, “because my family members, my father died, they disappeared. My father -in-law disappeared. Sometimes I felt like I wanted to kill myself” so that he could see them in next life. He then recalled the theory that “life is a struggle. We have to bear the situation to have the life going forward.” By 1979, he heard the sounds of explosions far away, which was why he knew it was the Liberation Day. The cadres tried to evacuate people to other locations. “I, at the time, told the Vietnamese troops that I was now alone so I was willing to stay with the Vietnamese troops so that I had rice to eat.” With this, the Civil Party lawyers finished their line of questioning.

 

Mr. Boyle started his questions by asking in which village he was living in when his wife and children were taken to be killed. Mr. Sunlay answered that his wife and children had been taken to Kbal Koh Trong, while he was in Kroh Ches commune. Regarding militiamen’s investigations of Vietnamese people, he said that his background was known before that time. Angkar assigned the workers to investigate who were Vietnamese. In villages and communes, Khmer Rouge cadres were aware who belonged to whose family. Thus, they decided “not to escape anywhere else” but to stay at their location. Not only his wife and children were sent to Koh Trong to be killed, but also others. They were told that the husbands had been assigned to climb palm trees, but this, he said, was a pretext. The children were half-blooded Vietnamese. This took place during the time that the water rose, so perhaps in September 1978.

One survivor named Achar Puol told him about this. Mr. Boyle referred to his Civil Party application, in which he had said that Ta Sen and Thol drove the oxcart and told him about this.[9] He confirmed this now and said that Ta Thol suggested a stupa to be built. Villagers did not witness the scene of executions. Militiamen went with the wives and children. Thol witnessed the incident.

At this point, the President interrupted the questioning and adjourned the hearing. It will resume tomorrow, March 02 2016, at 9 am.  Tomorrow, the Chamber will continue the statement of suffering of Uch Sunlay and then hear 2-TCW-938 in relation to Au Kanseng Security Center.

 

[1] At 01142660 (EN), 01206358 (FR), 00492024 (KH).

[2] At 00621378 (KH), 01020493 (FR) 00621380-81 (EN).

[3] At 00621379 (KH), 0120 00621377 (EN).

[4] This was probably a translation error, since she afterwards consistently talks about thirteen family members that were taken away.

[5] E3/5506, Written Record of Sao Khorn, at question 19 and 20. E3/5501, Written Record of Thuon Lorn, at 00373309 (EN), 00368651 (KH), 00426222 (KH) and 00373310 (EN), 00368653 (KH), 00426224 (FR).

[6] E3/7750, at 00275052 (EN), 00206377 (KH), 00275063 (FR).

[7] E3/4544, at 00375532 (KH), 00424096 (FR), 00377836 (EN).

[8] At 00375533 (KH), 00424097 (FR), 00377836 (EN).

[9] E3/4844, at 00982031 (EN), 00920490 (FR), 00527657 (KH).

Featured Image: Civil Party at the hearing (ECCC: Flickr)