Ysa Osman Cross-Examined on Reliability of his Research

Today marked the final day of expert Ysa Osman’s testimony. He was cross-examined by Khieu Samphan Defense Counsel Anta Guissé on his methodology and she put it to him that he could not have and could not conduct objective research. Nuon Chea Defense Counsel Victor Koppe mainly questioned Mr. Osman on issues of demography, while the Co-Prosecution sought more clarification on the treatment of the Cham after 1977.

 

Methods of interview

All parties were present with the exception of National Khieu Samphan Defense Counsel Kong Sam Onn, who was absent due to personal reasons. Nuon Chea followed the proceedings from the holding cell. At the beginning of the session, the Chamber issued an oral ruling about the request by the Co-Prosecutors to hear additional witnesses 2-TCW-1017 and 2-TCCP-1016.[1] The oral submissions and responses were heard on Monday 21 2016. The Chamber decided to hear 2-TCCP-1016. This Civil Party will be heard next week after the testimony of 2-TCW-1012. A decision in relation to 2-TCW-1017 would be rendered as soon as possible and a detailed written decision provided soon.

The floor was granted to Khieu Samphan Defense Counsel who requested leave to present a folder to the expert, which was granted.[2]

She then said that he had mentioned Ahmad Sofiyah and No Satas. She wanted to know whether he had met them once or several times when drafting his books. He replied that he saw them more than one time from his recollection. A detailed interview was conducted only one time. He clarified that when going home, he had checked his book with regards to the issue came up yesterday about the figures 40 and 100. Mr. Osman explained that in Oukoubah on page 6, he had written that there were six people out of 100 Cham people who survived, while the rest all disappeared. As for No Satas, she had been one out of unmarried women. However, these 40 women were not the women who were killed in Trea Village. The number 40 referred to women who were gathered at Khsach Prachhes Pagoda in Krouch Chhmar District.

As for Ahmad Sofiyah, he said that he read her interview again. She had said that she was amongst the 35 women who was sent out of the Wat Khsach Prachhes Pagoda. In relation to the 100 women who died, he received the information from various interviews: Mao Maisam had said that they were sent to a house in Trea Village and not to Khsach Prachhes Pagoda. San Saros did not recall the exact number. Another woman – who was called Saleh Saros – said that the number of people amongst those in the group that she travelled with was about 200. Thus, there were discrepancies in number. Tam Chouk was an alias for another woman, and she had said that she was amongst the 50 who was sent out from Wat Prachhes Pagoda. These numbers referred to the women who were sent out of Wat Prachhes Pagoda. There were other groups as well. Hence, different figures referred to different groups.

He met Ahmad Sofiyah informally several times, since she lived in a village not far from his native village. For the purpose of his book, he conducted a detailed interview with her. On another location, he verified the record of interview with her. On another occasion, he met her again. He added that after he started working at the ECCC, he went to see her again in his capacity as an analysis. He went with the investigator Mike Dixon and read out an excerpt of the book with him. This investigator asked her to confirm or amend information that was provided.

She said that when he referred to the 100 people, he had referred to the people gathered in a house in Trea Village.[3] She asked whether he agreed that this figure was connected to the house in Trea Village. He answered that he did not use the figure 100 “in the bracket”. For words were put in brackets, he said, this meant that he referred to an exact quotation. Since he had not put them in brackets, this meant that it was based on his research with the five interviewees. The figure of 100 was in reference to an event of unmarried women who were sent to Trea Village and purged later on. Those women were asked whether they were Cham or Khmer before they were killed.

She then said that when No Satas was interviewed by DC-Cam, she had said that she personally attended an execution, while she had said to the investigators that she had not been an eye-witness. No Satas had said that she had given this wrong information, because she wanted justice to be done.[4] Ms. Guissé asked whether there was not a risk that people provided information that was not accurate due to psychological factors. Mr. Osman replied that he had noticed some discrepancies in the accounts. He said that he believed it was because of fading memories. If No Satas was to be interviewed in ten years, her interview might be different again.

Ms. Guissé said that No Satas had stated that she had told Mr. Osman about the executions, because she needed “justice to be delivered”.[5] She inquired whether he had the impression that people like No Satas could provide erroneous information or accounts of what they had not witnessed and whether he had taken that into account in his research. He replied that they felt pain for the loss of their family members, particularly when witnessing their executions. If a witness said that she witnessed an event, he would write this. He would not add or remove any part of the interview. He had the same feeling that victims would want justice to be done, which was why words would be “a little bit more than what actually happened”. The killings “of course took place”.

Ms. Guissé turned back to Trea Village and asked whether he found out who the district secretary was at the time, since the subject was still “a mystery” to her. He answered that Trea Village was under the control of Krouch Chhmar District. The head of this district was Ta Pha. Later on, he was killed – perhaps in early 1977 – when the purges started in the East Zone. After Ta Pha, another individual took over, who was a close associate of Ke Pauk. He was sent from Chamkar Leu and his name was Ta Hor. Interviewees knew Ta Hor well. Now Ta Hor had changed his name, because he was “trying to conceal his background” in relation to the killings. He said that he had met Ta Hor when working at the Office of the Co-Investigating Judges “and I could say that he lies 100% of what he knew”. Another time he had talked about a district chief who was deceased. She wanted to know whether he referred to the same person. Mr. Osman answered that those who could recollect what happened during the time, particularly in relation to the committee of the district, the committee consisted of three people: secretary, deputy secretary, and the member. Some people, he said, might have confused these three people. Ta Pha was killed after the Central Zone and the Southwest Zone entered the place.

Ms. Guissé moved on and said that it appeared that he had said that there were changes of responsibility. Ms. Guissé wanted to know whether he systematically met people or whether he only met persons when he had in-depth interviews. He replied that those who did not live far away from the birth village, he frequently passed by them. He interviewed some of them on a few occasions. He met interviewees who lived further away only once.

 

Contemporaneous documents

Next, she turned to the topic of contemporaneous documents. She said that he had decided not to carry out any research on the census conducted by the French, since he was of the view that this census was not reliable, because he had heard from a witness that the French did not make any difference between Khmer and Cham.[6] He answered that he believed what the Cham people told him, and they had said that there had not been any census that was conducted. Moreover, his ID card only said that he was Cambodian and not Cham Muslim. This was also the case in the past regime. She wanted to know whether he carried out any research to know how the census was implemented. He replied that the interviewees did not mention any census in the past regime. Thus, he did not focus on the census. The figure that he had quoted was retrieved from one individuals he trusts. This person worked with the person who was responsible for managing the Cham community. His name was Les Los. Hakims were responsible for the religious community and would make reports on how many Cham people lived in one village to their superiors. Les Los had met someone and gave him the statistics of the Cham living in the past regime. Ms. Guissé inquired whether he had consulted documents for these statistics or whether he relied only on oral testimonies. Mr. Osman said that the figures came from the assertion of interviewees he met. Furthermore, he believed that these numbers were based on documents, but these documents may have been destroyed and burned by the Khmer Rouge. He asked why the Khmer Rouge destroyed the documents and then put the question to him about the documents. She then asked whether it was not logical to consult all documents that existed on a topic as part of an empirical research, including the French census. “If you do not believe in what my interviewees told” and relied on the French census, he wanted her to show him the specific figure. The President instructed the expert to answer questions that were put to him and told him that he could not provide any information based on activities that he had done while working at the OCIJ. The President also said that he was not allowed to instruct other court members to instruct them to find more evidence. Mr. Osman apologized for the times that he had gone beyond his expertise. He said that he was forced to expand beyond his expertise, because counsel seemed not to believe him. The President said that the Chamber would analyze the information and determine which information was credible.

Ms. Guissé asked whether it was not a shortcut that he did not look at all the documents that existed on the census that existed. She queried whether he was therefore not objective, to which he answered that his research was based on his capability. He did not have the ability to fly abroad to France to ask about the statistics in France. She asked whether he had no other means while working at DC-Cam to obtain documents from other persons who worked on this subject, for instance. He told the Court that he had communicated via e-mail with a few authors. The authors, however could not speak Cham and therefore could not interview the people.

Ms. Guissé turned to another point and inquired whether he had ever seen Eva Tabeau’s demographic research report.[7] He answered that he had never read that document. She then asked whether she had done research before conducting the interview. He replied that he had read documents from Tuol Sleng – confession reports and telegrams – that were maintained at DC-Cam. He also read documents in relation to Cham people who were arrested and sent to S-21. He relied rather heavily on the interviews with victims and cadres who worked at Krouch Chhmar Security Center. She asked whether he had conducted research on population transfers to see whether Cham were involved in this or not. He replied that the evacuation did not take place in 1975 according to the interviewees, but rather in 1973 during the military clashes. Later, the second evacuation took place on 17 April 1975. He said that the Khmer Rouge evacuated the Cham to disperse them so that they would not live in one community and rebel again. The President reminded the expert to provide precise answers.

Ms. Guissé inquired whether he also interviewed Khmer people to see whether they were also transferred during that period, which the witness confirmed. These Khmer people affirmed that the Cham people who were living in the next village were evacuated. He remembered the name of Chhum Kea and Dyn Paet. At this point the President adjourned the hearing for a break.

 

 

Criticism of research methods

After the break, Ms. Guissé confronted him with a report by Henri Locard about the research methods of DC-Cam.[8] Locard said that the figures given by DC-Cam could not be very accurate, since the archives had been destroyed. He said that DC-Cam mostly worked with “inexperienced young researchers”. At this point, Judge Jean-Marc Lavergne interjected and said that the figures concerned the security center Wat O Trakuon and asked her to clarify. She replied that she was referring to Locard’s criticism of research methodology in general and not so much the figures referred to. Mr. Osman replied that his research was focusing on Cham people. The question was related to Henri Locard and research methodology by DC-Cam. This question should be referred to the director of DC-Cam, Mr. Osman said. The President informed the expert that he could not instruct counsel to question other witnesses. He said that the questioning by counsel were appropriate and that the question methods used in this court could soon be used as a model for domestic courts.

Ms. Guissé asked him to react to such criticism. Mr. Osman replied that he had heard about the criticism not only by Henri Locard but also by other researchers. He said that some researchers had criticized that DC-Cam had provided figures that were not accurate. DC-Cam, Mr. Osman said, was still maintaining its position that these were the figures provided by witnesses. They could not use numbers that were less than what witnesses had told them. When relaying on figures indicated in documents that were not accurate, he argued that this was the issue of the document itself.

Ms. Guissé asked whether he consulted documents of the Democratic Kampuchea regime when writing his book. He answered that there were perhaps two documents used by him. These were compiled by the Khmer Republic Regime and referred to the death of Cham people and Cham leaders. He could not remember on which date they were written.

 

Mat Ly

Next, Ms. Guissé referred to the person Mat Ly and wanted to know whether he remembered what Mat Ly’s duties and responsibilities were during Democratic Kampuchea. He replied that Mat Ly was a cadre and amongst the leaders of Tboung Khmum. He was in the group of the three district leaders. He was the second person amongst the three and therefore the Deputy Secretary of Tboung Khmum District. Ms. Guissé wanted to know what position Mat Ly held after the fall of the regime. Mr. Osman answered that he could recall that he was the deputy minister in the government, but he had not conducted research on his role and function. However, Cham people knew well that he was a dignitary and leading person of Cham Cambodia. She quoted a document which indicated that he was a prosecutor in the 1979 trials in Cambodia that tried Pol Pot in absentia.[9] Mr. Osman recalled that Mat Ly had played a role, but did not know his specific function.

 

Flaws in research

She quoted his testimony in which he had agreed that there had been an error in his book: he had confused Khieu Samphan and Comrade Khieu, the latter being Son Sen.[10] She asked him whether it was correct that he consulted the documents in Khmer. He replied that he first wrote the book in Khmer. She said that this might have been an issue of methodology. She asked whether he did any background research on the aliases of leaders, to which the expert answered that he acknowledged that he had “some weaknesses when writing [his] book”. He did not have a large amount of documents at the time of writing. He had concluded that Comrade Khieu was Khieu Samphan and later found out that it was actually Son Sen. Ms. Guissé said that this was a major issue and asked whether this was not linked to the fact that he was Cham and felt a need for justice and could therefore not be objective. When Ms. Guissé asked: “didn’t that prevent you from having an objective analysis and a thorough analysis of the documents that you reviewed when you wrote your book?”, International Co-Prosecutor Nicholas Koumjian interjected and said that when she said that he had distorted evidence, she was referring to the statement that he had referred to “the Chan”. Mr. Koumjian said that she could ask Mr. Osman about what he meant with “the Cham”. Moreover, he submitted that her question was argumentative. Responding to this remark, Ms. Guissé read out an excerpt and asked how he was able to draw broad conclusions about the “the entire Cham race” from a telegram that spoke about Cham, former soldiers and cooperative chiefs in Chamkar Leu District.[11] He answered that it did not specify the Cham people, which he asserted was the reason for the mistranslation. He submitted that the translation still referred to the entire Cham community in Chamkar Leu and not the whole of Cambodia. She said that when reading out the totality of the telegram, it was clear that mention was not made of the totality of the entire Cham race, but only to specific people. Ms. Guissé said that since he had worked in Khmer, this could not be a translation error. She asked whether he did not extrapolate from what was said in the telegram. Mr. Osman answered that the question was beyond his ability to respond, since English was not his native language. He said that this interpretation was that it referred to the entire Cham population in Chamkar Leu.

She asked him whether he did not think that he read documents of the period under the influence of what he wanted to demonstrate, which the expert denied. “You can say whatever you want. For me, I authored the book based on documents, based on the accounts of people I interviewed, and my analysis is based on my professional ability.”

She referred to evidence provided for by Saleh Ahmad in front of the Chamber, who had also given an interview to Mr. Osman. In his interview with Ysa Osman he had said that cadres specifically referred to Cham in a meeting, while he said in his testimony that the meeting only dealt with cadres from the East Zone.[12] She pointed to further inconsistencies of Saleh Ahmad’s account. Ms. Guissé said that Saleh Ahmad had been confronted with his interview with Ysa Osman and asked whether he had given the answers as they were written down in the book, to which he had said that he could not remember, but that all enemies had to be purged and not only Cham. Asked for his reaction, Mr. Osman replied that the audio recording of his interview with Sales Ahmad was available at the office of DC-Cam. Saleh Ahmad had also provided his thumb print. He said that the fact that Saleh Ahmad’s account different in front of the ECCC was due to Saleh Ahmad’s memory, and not because Mr. Osman had written a different account. Mr. Koumjian interjected and said that another excerpt of the witness’s testimony had to be provided, which indicated that Cham people had to be smashed and that this policy had been implemented to 50%.[13]

She again submitted that he was not objective in his research and asked whether focusing on the Cham “doesn’t that hinder you in your thinking”, when asking questions only about the Cham community and not about what happened to other communities. He denied this. He said that the witnesses would respond to the questions he had put to them. He had not asked them how the Cham people were killed.

Moving to her next topic, she quoted another excerpt of his book and wanted to know whether it was correct that his interviews from various members of the community were facilitated by two people.[14] He confirmed that this was correct in this context. He said that researchers could not exercise their full freedom but had to first see the village chief before interviewing people, and in the case of Cham people he had to seek permission by the hakim. Sos Kamry was well respected, he said, and a knowledgeable Cham leader.

Ms. Guissé said that she had not been able to conclude her line of questioning and requested additional time. The President denied this request and said that the Chamber had already granted “ample time” to both sides. He announced that 50 minutes would be granted to the Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyers and Co-Prosecutors and 50 minutes to Defense Teams to conclude the questioning of the expert. After this, submissions regarding a scheduling request by the Nuon Chea Defense Team would be heard.

 

 

Back to the Co-Prosecution

After lunch, the floor was granted to the Co-Prosecutors and Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyers for 50 minutes. Mr. Koumjian turned to the telegram concerning Chamkar Leu and wanted to know whether Mr. Osman knew the name of the sector secretary of Chamkar Leu in 1977. He replied that it was Ke Pauk’s wife called Soeun. Mr. Koppe then asked about Hor, who was in the house in Trea and who was identified as the district secretary at that time. The expert said that before working at Krouch Chhmar, he was one of the cadres in Chamkar Leu.[15] Mr. Koumjian said that Ben Kiernan talked about a person called Ibrahim and discussed the massacres of families in Chamkar Leu.[16] Mr. Koumjian inquired whether the findings of Ben Kiernan were consistent with those that the expert had found about the treatment of Cham in Chamkar Leu. Mr. Osman said that there was a big Cham village in Chamkar Leu. However, Cham did not only live in that village during the Khmer Rouge. A large number of Cham people had been transferred out of the East Zone after some had rebelled. Some were sent to Stung Trong, and some were sent to Kampong Thom. From the beginning of 1977, Mr. Osman argued, specific targeting of the Cham people started. They were accused of being enemies and killed later on. Mr. Koumjian asked whether he had found an indication in his research that people responsible for the killings were in any way punished by the Democratic Kampuchea regime. The expert replied that the crackdown of the rebellion movement, the transfer and selection of those who were involved in the rebellion and subsequently killed, was decided by those in the upper level. Mr. Koumjian wanted to know whether the treatment of the Cham improved once they were transferred to other sectors. Mr. Osman explained that they were dispersed out of the communities. Two or three families were sent to live in different places from other communities. Some families were separated. This also applied to young children and babies, he said. The transfer of the people out of the East Zone happened in 1977 and the situation became worse subsequently in the Central Zone and the East Zone. Those who were considered Cham people were taken away and killed. Those who were suspected of being Cham were interrogated and also killed. Five or six Cham women survived, because they had lied of being Khmer.

Mr. Koumjian said that in mid-1978, cadres were sent to the East Zone following purges and put in charge of various districts. People would be sent to their birth villages and people were “so delighted” in the hope to reunite with their families. He said that this was a pretext to gather up the Cham people and killed. Some were killed before they arrived at their birth village. The situation became worse in 1977 and 1978, when hundreds of Cham people died, he said. Mr. Koumjian then said that he did not have any further questions. Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyers also did not have any further questions.

 

Demographics

The floor was granted to the Nuon Chea Defense Team. Mr. Koppe wanted to know whether he knew Jacques Migozzi who had given numbers of the Cham who survived, which the witness denied. Mr. Koppe said that he had quoted him. He was considered a leading demographic by some experts.[17] He had said that 150,000 Cham lived in Cambodia 1970, and subsequently there had been an academic debate between Vickery and Ben Kiernan. He replied that he did not know the content of this debate. He had said that he arrived at the number of 190,000 in 1975. The next real count was in 1981. Vickery was saying that the maximum casualties of Cham people was 10,170, while Kiernan was indicating the number of 77,000. Mr. Koppe said that he was not sure whether they agreed even on the number of 10,000, but asked whether the number of casualties was a maximum of 10,170 and not 200,000 as indicated by Osman.[18] International Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer Marie Guiraud interjected and asked for references, since the one he gave only included 150,000. Mr. Koppe asked whether Mr. Osman was aware of the number of 10,170 of casualties. Again Ms. Guiraud interjected and sought for proper reference. Mr. Koppe said that it was in the demographic report.[19] Mr. Koumjian said that Tabeau actually referred to another numer.[20] Mr. Koppe said that Vickery referred to a 1982 count of 180200 Cham. That person had also said that Migozzi arrived at the number of 150,000.[21] Mr. Koppe asked whether Mr. Osman was able to give a reacting to the figure of 10,170 that was “still high”. Mr. Koumjian interjected again and sought proper references again. Mr. Koppe referred to the document indicated before.[22] Mr. Koppe said that Vickery came to a complete different account of Cham victims. Mr. Osman replied that he had read books by Ben Kiernan and Vickery. He said that they cited other sources. However, for his research he had not relied on the same documents or figure that the two people gave. He relied on the accounts on the witnesses and documents that he could find. He came to the conclusion that his own number was much higher than Ben Kiernan’s. The figure of Cham people of 1979 was similar to those of Kiernan and Vickery. He submitted that the total population at present was much less than the one of 1975. Mr. Koppe pointed out that Mr. Osman had referred to Migozzi extensively. He wanted to know what his expert opinion was on why Migozzi was wrong in his demographic estimate, since it seemed that “everyone agreed” that he was “the expert demographer”. Mr. Osman replied that the content of his book was based on his research, but he had not mentioned anywhere that they were wrong. “And to be frank, I cannot put the trust on a person who hasn’t published any book. If I met Migozzi and if he presents me the sources . . . I might reconsider my position.” Mr. Koppe said that if he had referred to his book in a footnote, it was to be assumed that he had read Migozzi’s book. Mr. Koppe said that it seemed that he based his numbers on the accounts of Zakariya Adam, Van Math, Mat Ly who, Mr. Koppe argued, had a strong interest in inflating the numbers. He replied that he also used a document from the Ministry of Culture and Religion. Moreover, Sos Kamry gave a similar figure. Thus, he had different sources for his numbers. He submitted that there was no interest in inflating the numbers: “everyone wants justice and their accounts are based on their experiences during the regime. There is no gain for them to inflate the number of Cham people.”

Turning to his last question, Mr. Koppe inquired whether he had done interviews or was in possession of documents that Vickery, Kiernan or Tabeau had not. Mr. Osman replied that he referred to the figure of previous researchers and highlighted the numbers of Vickery and Kiernan. It was therefore open to the reader’s interpretation.

Judge Lavergne clarified that the article Mr. Koppe had referred to was at a different number than Mr. Koppe had indicated.[23] At this point, Ms. Guiraud commented for the record that her interpretation of the document was that Migozzi referred to a number of 216,000 Cham people in 1975.[24] Mr. Koppe said that this was incorrect, since Migozzi left the country during the war and did not come back. Judge Lavergne read a paragraph of the disputed article, who had estimate that Migozzi had indicated a number of 1970.[25]

 

Back to research methodologies

The floor was given to Ms. Guissé. She pointed to yesterday’s testimony, in which he had said that he carried out research in Kang Meas and Krouch Chhmar.[26] He said that this was correct, but that he also carried out research in Kampong Siem and Chamkar Leu. He confirmed that he had interviewed three individuals at Chamkar Leu. He had interviewed Soh Rosat in Chamkar Leu, as he did with Sos Kamry. He could recall that there was another individual that he had interviewed. He included Sos Kamry in his work. Soh Rosat was in his first book, he said. He could not recall the name of the third individual. Sos Kamry was a leader in one committee for Cham people. Soh Rosat was also working in that committee. He wanted to know about the livelihood of Cham people during the Khmer Rouge, so he was referred to Soh Rosat.This was why he was introduced to Mr. Rosat. She wanted to know whether he was no longer in Chamkar Leu during Democratic Kampuchea which the expert could not remember.[27] At this point, the President adjourned the hearing for a break.

 

Treatment of Cham and Khmer population

After the break, the floor was given back to the Khieu Samphan Defense Team. She wanted to know whether there was a religious practice to waive the obligation to take an oath before the court. He replied that he had not done research into this matter and could not give any information on this. Ms. Guissé referred to witness 2-TCW-827, who had said that he was not obliged to take an oath before the Chamber because of his position as a religious leader.[28]

She also referred to witnesses 2-TCW-894 and 2-TCW-938.[29] Mr. Koumjian asked whether it was appropriate to stay in open session now. Ms. Guissé said that her questions were generic in nature. 2-TCW-894 had talked about marriages and had made a distinction between Cham who had a good background and those who had not. Ms. Guissé wanted to know whether he had looked into this during his research. He answered that some Cham had been given positions, ranging from village chiefs to cooperative chiefs and ranging to district chiefs in some cases. This did not, he pointed out, mean that the Khmer Rouge promoted Cham people and did not suppress them. He argued that the Khmer Rouge needed Cham people to suppress other Cham people. These people who were appointed chiefs were mostly illiterate he said.

She wanted to know whether he saw a difference in the promotion of Cham and Khmer people. She also asked whether Mat Ly was not a counter-example for the illiteracy. He replied that some of them were not illiterate and there were some exceptions. Ms. Guissé said that it seemed that the promotion of uneducated people seemed to have been the case for everyone in the country. He confirmed this and said that this was the reason that millions of Khmer and Cham people died. They selected people who came from poor and uneducated backgrounds to serve them, Mr. Osman said.

Witness 2-TCW-894 had said that marriages between Khmer people and Cham people still took place in 1978. He replied that he attended the testimony of these two witnesses. He said that this did not prove that Cham people were not victims, since they were still disappearing.

Ms. Guissé then confronted Mr. Osman with his position as an OCIJ staff member and asked him whether there was no issue of partiality linked to it, since he was a Cham person. He replied that he was there to testify as an expert as an author of the books. He was aware that perpetrators never admitted that they were perpetrators, such as Hor. However, surviving witnesses confirmed Hor’s position during the regime. As a researcher, Mr. Osman said, he had to maintain his neutral position and hear both victims and perpetrators.

At this point, Ms. Guissé said that she regretted that she was not given extra time like the other teams, despite the fact that they were the only team requesting extra time. The President thanked the expert and dismissed him.

The Nuon Chea Defense Team had requested that the witnesses on S-21 should be heard after Khmer New Year. The floor was given to Mr. Koppe. He clarified that it was not a motion they filed but an e-mail they had sent to a senior legal officer. He proposed that testimonies of Phnom Kraol and Au Kanseng should be finished first before moving to the next segment. He said that the topic of S-21 and internal purges was important to the defense and therefore requested not to fill in any witness for S-21 for days that no other witness was available until after Khmer New Year. In addition to this, they had a strong preference to call “the most important witness” at the end of the segment (2-TCW-916). Ms. Guissé said that she aligned herself with the Nuon Chea application. Mr. Koumjian said that they had no problem with trying to finish the two security centers before, but an expeditious trial was important. Thus, if no witness was available, the less important witnesses should be called instead of having a day without testimonies. Ms. Guiraud agreed with the Co-Prosecution. Mr. Koppe replied that the delay would not be substantial and only concern one or two days.

The President adjourned the hearing. It will continue on Monday, March 28 2016 at 9 am with the testimony of 2-TCW-838 in relation to Phnom Kraol Security Center.

 

 

 

 

[1] E390.

[2] E3/2653, E3/9323 E3/9500, E3/162, E3/7281 and E3/1807

[3] E3/1822, at 00078454 (EN).

[4] E3/9307.

[5] E3/5193, at 00224113 (FR), 00274704 (EN), 00204445 (KH).

[6] E3/9680, Article of the Phnom Penh Post, 01199557 (EN).

[7] E3/2413.

[8] E3/2649, at 00614111 (FR), 00208395 (EN), 00660598 (KH).

[9] E3/3555, at 00489348 (EN).

[10] E3/2653, at 00219176 (EN), referring to E3/511.

[11] E3/511.

[12] E3/9323, at 00286658 (FR), 00275387 (KH), 00218542 (EN) and Testimony of Sales Ahmad, 09 March 2016, shortly before 13:36.

[13] Ibid., at 10:43:15.

[14] E3/1822, at 00078562 (EN). E3/2653, at 00219059 (EN).

[15] E3/1822, p. 120, at 00758331 (FR).

[16] E3/1593, at page 278. 00637792-93 (KH), 00639051-52 (FR); p. 430.

[17] E3/1822, at 00078450 (EN), footnote 6. E3/2413, Eva Tabeau, at 00385243 (EN).

[18] E3/9382.

[19] E3/2413; E3/1593, at 01149993 (EN).

[20] E3/2413, at 00385311, p. 49.

[21] E3/9382.

[22] E367/4.1.7 which he said corresponded to E3/9382.

[23] E3/9683.

[24] Ibid., 01199527.

[25] Ibid., 01199597.

[26] Testimony of Ysa Osman, March 23, 2016, at 10:14:41.

[27] E3/1822, p. 114.

[28] E3/5216, at 00234568 (FR), 00225495 (EN), 00223891 (KH).

[29] E3/9500 , E3/162.