Witness Describes Khmer Rouge As Aggressors Against Vietnam

Today, former deputy secretary of Koh Nhek district office Bun Loeng Chauy gave evidence on Phnom Kraol Security Center, the authority structure of the district and sector 105 and border conflicts with Vietnam. He put it to the Court that the Khmer Rouge were the aggressor and that Vietnam did not attack Cambodia first.

 

Background and functions of the witness

Witness 2-TCW-838 was heard in relation to Phnom Kraol Security Center. All parties to the case were present and Nuon Chea followed the proceedings from the holding cell.

Mr. Bun Loeng Chauy, Chan Buon Leut, was born on 22 March 1953 in Koh Ma Yoeul Village, Peam Chimiet Commune, Koh Nhek District, Mondulkiri and currently resides in Dah Kramom Village, Sokdom Commune, Sen Monorom District, Mondulkiri Province.

The floor was granted to the Co-Prosecutors. Senior Assistant Prosecutor Dale Lysak started his line of questioning by saying that the witness had indicated having gone to the forest and having joined the revolution in 1966 or 1968. He wanted to know whether he became a party member at some point. He replied that he came to the forest in May 1968. He was not a party member at that time yet. He was not yet a party member by 1975. He became a member of the youth league and was a group chief of five or six members in 1975. During the Khmer Rouge regime, he held various positions. He was the bodyguard of Ka Sy, secretary of Keo Seima District, until 22 February 1977. Then Ka Sy was sent to Security Center. He was with him for a month at that location, before his superior was taken away and killed. He was with him for around two years in total. He had been with him since the period of the resistance in 1973.

This prompted Mr. Lysak to refer to his OCIJ interview, in which he had said that he was Deputy District Secretary of Keo Seima District from 1975 until 1977 and had been a messenger for his uncle Ka Sy since 1973.[1] Mr. Lysak asked whether it was correct that he was the Deputy District Secretary, which the witness denied. “As I said, my position at the time was his bodyguard”. Mr. Lysak referred to his DC-Cam interview. In this interview, he had also said that he was the Deputy District Secretary.[2] Mr. Lysak asked him to explain the discrepancy. The witness replied that the person who made the record of the interview must have made a mistake. “I was simply a combatant”. He claimed that there was no such promotion. Later on, he was a deputy chief of the office and a member of the youth league and in charge of a group of five to six member. He was deputy chief of this office while Ka Sy was Secretary of the district. He said that he had a low position at the office and was not promoted to the secretary of the district. His function was “not equal to the Deputy Secretary of the district”. He became deputy chief of this office in June 1975. Ka Sy’s superior was Chhan Ham. The first member was Kong and the second member was Kham.

 

Arrest of his uncle Ka Sy

Mr. Lysak then asked about the removal of his uncle Ka Sy. Mr. Loeng Chauy replied that his uncle was removed in February 1977. The reason was that he supported and “he did not report a member in the district who committed moral offence”. Thus, his uncle was disciplined and demoted so that he could be monitored until a decision to arrest him was made. Two days later, the witness was sent to a worksite working with his uncle. One month later, the witness was “dispersed from him” so that they could take away his uncle and kill him. The worksite was called Roy Ya. Chan Thong and Ta Phy were responsible for the worksite at the time.

Mr. Lysak said that he had indicated in his Written Record of Interview that he first went to office K-16 before going to the worksite. The witness confirmed this information. He said that he was sent to Ro Ya around two or three months. He was assigned to saw food to build a school building when being at K-16. He was there from February until June.

His uncle was also placed at K-16 but was not sent to Ro Ya worksite. When his uncle was arrested he had been sent away already. He knew about the arrest, because he had a relative who was sent to uproot a plant. This relative witnessed the arrest of Ka Sy. Asked why he was arrested, Mr. Loeng Chauy said that trust was withdrawn from him because of his uncle. To his understanding, he had not done anything wrong.

Roy Ya worksite was located in Koh Nhek District under K-17 and close to Phnom Kraol. K-17 was the office of Sector 105. After this, K-16 existed, but belonged to the deputy chief of the sector and not to the sector. K-16 and K-17 are around two kilometers apart now. At the time, they were not close to each other. K-17 was posted on Phnom Kraol and K-16 was located in the same location. To his estimate, Ro Ya was located not more than eight kilometers away from the office. They were travelling by foot at the time. He was not under arrest while being at Ro Ya. He was detained “so that I could be protected”. He was neither tied up nor chained. He was at the worksite from June until December when he fell ill and was hospitalized. In January or February he was sent back to the worksite. He was in hospital in February the next year. He was in the hospital until the liberation. He could not walk. One of his legs could not be moved. He was in the hospital for less than one month, after which the liberation occurred.

Mr. Lysak inquired whether his uncle Ka Sy had a wife and children at the time, and if yes, what happened to them when Ka Sy was arrested. He recounted that the wife was sent to the cooperative after a meeting. At the time, he had six or seven children. One of his children is deceased, while the others are still alive.

Mr. Lysak then asked what happened to people who were identified as former officials or soldiers of the Lon Nol regime when the Khmer Rouge arrived in Mondulkiri. Mr. Loeng Chauy replied that it was difficult for him to answer the question, since Mondulkiri was liberated in 1970 and not on 17 April 1975. He described the years from 1970 until 1975 as the resistance period. Those who were the targets of arrests included:

• New People (People from Phnom Penh and other provinces)
• former soldiers in the previous regime – those who were resisting
• those who were “tired of communal eating” and deprivation of their private possession and property
• Khmer Sar, KTB agents, CIA agents, and members of the Vietnamese network

He said that the last group of the Vietnamese network was the most important target and was targeted later. Mr. Lysak referred to his statement and wanted to know whether all of the former Lon Nol soldiers were targeted or only those who held specific ranks.[3] At this point, Nuon Chea Defense Counsel Victor Koppe objected, since it related to the context of the question: Mr. Koppe answered that it seemed that he was answering the question as a Deputy Chief and not someone who was involved in the arrests. Mr. Koppe said that it was doubtful that the witness could have any knowledge about this question. The objection was overruled. Mr. Lysak repeated his question. The witness answered that some of the former soldiers survived the regime, while some others were selected to be killed “because of their behavior” when they were monitored. At first, Lon Nol soldiers could live peacefully, but officials were arrested. Later, when living in cooperatives the former Lon Nol soldiers were monitored because of their previous position and were killed if they did not behave well. Those who behaved well survived. Those who were killed were from amongst the cadres. Mr. Lysak again referred to his interview, in which he had said that in 1975 only higher ranking officers were killed, while later more people were killed.[4] Mr. Lysak asked whether it was correct that the higher ranking officers were killed in the initial years. He recounted that group and squad chief would be arrested and killed if their chief was killed. Thus, the “same line” would be arrested. The purge was conducted through the chain of command.

Mr. Koppe interjected and observed that the translation seemed to be incorrect. Judge Claudia Fenz said that counsel should wait for this observation until the witness had finished.

Mr. Lysak asked what security offices he knew in Sector 105 during the Khmer Rouge regime. Mr. Loeng Chauy replied that here was only one security center in Mondulkiri – K-11 – but there was also a re-education center located in Nang Khylek. K-11 was used as a prison. “The place was to temper those former Lon Nol soldiers” in Meas Kilung. K-11 was located in the center of Koh Nhek. He could not recall the real name of K-11 Security Center, but it was located close to the office on Phnom Kraol.

At this point, Trial Chamber President Nil Nonn adjourned the hearing for a break.

 

 

Phnom Kraol

After the break, Mr. Lysak read out an excerpt of his interview, in which he had said that K-11 was a temporary prison and Phnom Kraol for “heavy prisoners”.[5] The witness confirmed this. The heavy or serious prisoners were “those who joined with the Vietnamese”. Some survived the security center. One of his in-laws who passed away last month used to be in the detention together with Ta Sy and survived the regime. His relatives were placed in the detention for one week, for example, and minor prisoners were sent to Nang Khylek while the others were killed. His younger in-law survived the detention at Phnom Kraol and had described his detention.

The relatives who did not survive were arrested with his uncle and had never returned. Only one or two came back, including in younger in-law. The relatives were neighbors of his uncle.

The security house of Phnom Kraol Security Center could host around 100 people. The house was made out of bamboo and there was a fence around the compound. He had never heard that inmates were able to flee. He used to walk past by Phnom Kraol, since he walked past it on a road that was around fifty meters away. Phay was responsible for the center and a soldier. He was the commander of the district. He was reassigned to be in charge of the security office later. He was under the supervision of Ta Sophea.

He learned from the prisoners that a vehicle would come once in a while to transport prisoners out. He did not know how many times prisoners were taken out. They were in a small group sometimes and taken not far away to be killed. Large groups of prisoners were taken to Kratie Province.

 

 

Trapeang Pring

Trapeang Pring was past the intersection to Ro Ya. It was about three or four kilometers apart from the worksite where he was working. He never went past Trapeang Pring. He saw that the earth was bulldozed, but did not go into the center. Mr. Lysak read an excerpt in which the witness had said that he had seen a killing site and used to cross and travel through Trapeang Pring.[6] Mr. Lysak wanted to know whether this was true and whether he ever saw tractors digging pits. Mr. Koppe objected and said that the witness had answered the question in relation to giving statistics about victims. Mr. Lysak said that the witness had said in his statement that he saw it with his own eyes. He then asked the witness again whether he saw tractors digging pits at Trapeang Pring and if yes, when. He said that the pits were located around 100 meters away from the road that was being constructed. He did not witness the executions, but a soldier had said that the pits included bodies that were buried. They dug the pit in 1977. He used to travel by that area, since he was working at Ro Ya worksite. The soldier was a sector soldier who was monitoring him. His name was Bun. He was the guard who monitored them at the field.

When he was at Ro Ya worksite, he did not know that those people were sent to the center. He knew that people were sent away by trucks, but they were sent to a location he did not know. Those who were related to Ta Chhoun were arrested. To his knowledge, the people were taken away from Ro Ya location.

Mr. Lysak quoted another excerpt.[7] The witness replied that he saw an oxcart transporting people while he was walking. Those people were taken out from the security office. There was one day that he was asked to herd water buffalos after he was transferred to Ro Ya. His younger relative chased the buffalos past the office of Ta Chhoun. The witness was thirsty and asked for water from a truck that he saw in front of the office. At the time, those who used to be with him at Keo Seima had told him that around 80 of his co-workers had been arrested. He did not spend much time “chit-chatting with that guy”. Some of the people who were arrested were ordinary people, some worked in the district office and some soldiers. He could recall the names of Phok and Khmer person Phek who worked at the district office and were amongst the group. These 80 people were not under the network of Kham Phoun but under Ka Sy. He knew them because they worked together.

 

Visit of Khieu Samphan

To his recollection, he went to harvest rice in 1974. Their weapons were removed. They were a group of bodyguards. He was wondering why their weapons were removed, and they were told that Khieu Samphan was visiting Mondulkiri and they did not trust them. He said that he did not witness Khieu Samphan and his delegation personally. Mr. Lysak referred to his interview in which he had said that Khieu Samphan visited K-11 and the dam with a delegation of several people.[8] Mr. Loeng Chauy explained that the deputy chief of the K-16 office had told him so. He saw the car convoy from the rice fields where he was working. The deputy chief of K-16 was a civilian and not a military. The dams Au Buon Kraom Dam and Au Buon Leu were completed in 1974.

 

Escape of 18 people and arrests of their wives

There were 18 people who fled from office K-16, but he could not recall the exact date. It happened in around mid or late 1977, perhaps in August. These people were implicated in the network of Ka Sy. They had been inducted into the party by Ka Sy and became scared when they heard that Ka Sy had been killed.

He could recall the names of Sien alias Nhon, Lam, Lang, Klak, Nhan, and Voeun , and some others who were amongst the 18 people who tried to flee. Nhon was chief of office K-16 and in charge of the people fled. Lam was an ordinary combatant and did not hold any position. Lam is still alive today. Mr. Lysak confronted the witness with an excerpt of the Written Record of Interview of Lam, who had said that there was a meeting in which it was announced that Keo Seima people were “all Vietnamese people”.[9] Mr. Lysak wanted to know whether he had known of such a meeting. The witness replied that such accusations of Vietnamese heads on Khmer bodies were not raised during meetings usually, but that those rumors existed. To his knowledge, the family members of those who fled were arrested the day after their husbands fled. It was his conclusion that they were arrested, because their husbands and fathers had fled to Vietnam. He did not witness their arrests, however, since he was working at Ro Ya at this time already. Information would pass between offices and the worksite, which is how he heard about this incident.

Asked about the wives of the people who fled to Vietnam, the witness said that the documents of Kim Hin – the wife of Nhon – were found at S-21. He could also remember Li, who had been Lam’s wife, Loeun and Hor.

The wives and children disappeared ever since. He did not know whether they were sent to S-21 prison or executed along the way, but he never saw them again.

Mr. Lysak asked leave to present to the witness a list of 140 prisoners from sector 105 who entered S-21 on 23 November 1977.[10] The request was granted. Mr. Lysak directed his attention to numbers 106-109, 130, 135-138, 140, and 142-143. This was total of 12 females. Mr. Lysak asked whether he recognized the names on the list and if he did so to explain who these people were. The witness replied that he did not recognize any of these names.

Mr. Lysak directed his attention to number 130, whose name Seng Prin alias Kim Hin and who was identified as the wife of Sroes Nhon. When Mr. Lysak wanted to know whether the witness could tell the court if the wife Kim Hin was the wife of Nhon, Mr. Koppe objected and said that the prosecutor was misrepresenting the evidence. The women on this list were identified as combatants and also as wives of other people. He replied that he did not know Hin’s birth name but that she was the wife of Nhon. They had a child.

The people were classified as ordinary workers of office K-16. Kim Hin was the head of the women’s group.

Mr. Lysak referred to number 142, who was called Srun Li and identify as the wife of Lam. The witness confirmed this information. The witness also confirmed that Nhoeng Hoeun (number 106 on the list) was the wife of Lang.

When Mr. Lysak asked whether he ever heard why the wives of the people who fled had been arrested, Mr. Koppe objected and said that this was not a complete picture: “that’s a bit sexist as only refer to them as the wives of”, since they were primarily identified as combatants. Khieu Samphan Defense Counsel Anta Guissé said that the witness had already said that he did not know why they were arrested. Mr. Lysak rephrased his question and asked what he meant when saying that lines of the husbands were arrested when they fled to Vietnam.[11] The witness said that he did not understand what happened at the time, but that wives and husbands were arrested and killed when the father was arrested and killed.

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

After the break, Mr. Lysak referred back to the arrest of wives and children. He wanted to know whether Nhon and Kim Hin had children and if so, whether they were arrested after Nhon fled to Vietnam. Mr. Bun Loeng Chauy replied that children were also arrested. Mr. Lysak wanted to know how he knew that Kim Hin was arrested together with her child, as he had also said in his DC-Cam interview. He answered that he was not present when they were arrested. He had learned about her arrest later. He learned this from the chiefs of offices.

When Nhon fled, all units were concerned and soldiers were deployed at all offices. During day and night time, soldiers stood guard. Mr. Lysak referred to his interview and asked how he knew that people at Ro Ya worksite were arrested.[12] Two secretaries were shot dead. At that time, Ka Sy was not yet arrested. Svay could escape while he was arrested and shot a person who was in charge of a generator. This person was also responsible for the medics in the sector. However, the bullet missed the individual and the person shot Svay instead. The people who came to arrest them were from the sector. Horn was the one who carried out the arrest together with Sot. Horn was responsible Keo Siema before Sy took over.

 

Further arrests

Mr. Lysak read out an excerpt of a telegram by Secretary Saroeun from April 1978 to which Pol Pot, Nuon Chea and Office 870 were copied.[13] The telegram said that Comrade Sot, the chairman of repair factory committed moral offence with woman, and that arrests were carried out because of this. Mr. Lysak wanted to know whether Mr. Loeng Chauy knew Comrade Sot, which the witness confirmed. He was the younger sibling of Sophea. From the time of Sot’s arrest, he had never heard of him anymore. He was from the same birthplace as the witness.

Ny was working with him at the worksite. Her parents were of Chinese descent.

Mr. Lysak asked whether he named individuals Tin and Lay who worked at K-17. Tin was chief of K-17 and married. He later on committed an immoral act and was arrested. He was put to Nang Kylek worksite. Tin survived the regime but passed away last year. Mr. Lysak asked what happened to Vieng Lay. He answered that after he was hospitalized, Ta Lay told him that he was K-17 secretary now. Saroeun replaced Horn since that time. Lay told him that Saroeun replaced Horn. Later on, he heard that Lay was arrested when the regime almost fell. He has never seen him again.

Mr. Lysak said for the record that Lay entered S-21 on the 20 of October 1978.[14] Mr. Lysak wanted to know whether there were any Vietnamese nationals in 1975 and if so what happened to them during the regime. Mr. Loeng Chauy replied that there was a small group of the Vietnamese minority. “And if they were, they may have been killed before 1975”. If there was a small minority in 1975, they did not live through the regime, he guessed. The President reminded the witness that he should tell the court what he had seen, remembered or heard and if he did not know, he should say so.

 

Vietnamese

Mr. Lysak referred to one of his interviews. The witness had talked about the killing of 1,800 Vietnamese people in Pou Lu Commune.[15] Mr. Lysak wanted to know how he knew this. Mr. Loeng Chauy replied that he knew this from a Vietnamese expert who worked with him at the time after 1979. Mr. Loeng Chauy said that it was in 1978. Pou Lu Commune is in Vietnam.

Those who went to study in Vietnam in 1951 came back to Cambodia in 1970 and joined the resistance with the Khmer Rouge. They were given certain positions at different institutions in communes and villagers. Those who were soldiers were part of the soldiers. Those who were specialized in medicine were in charge of medicine. He recalled the names of Chhyn, Mala, and Phyn. Phyn was in charge of medicine. Mala was in charge of the district committee. Chhyn was specialized in artillery. They disappeared in 1973. There were around 60 people who returned from Vietnam after having fled. However, certain individuals who fled and were arrested were killed. Mr. Lysak read out an excerpt of the witness’s statement.[16] Mr. Loeng Chauy had said that a person would be killed if it was known that this person had relatives in Vietnam. Mr. Lysak asked how he knew this and whether he could identify someone. He answered that a person was killed who had relatives in Vietnam and was linked to Ta Bun Nhet and Ta Boeun. They were not killed in groups but killed individually when being part of a network.

When they went to meet the Vietnamese along the borders and shook hands with the Vietnamese, he refused to attack them. They asked the Vietnamese to give back the territory to Cambodia. Horm and Lang did not agree with that and were therefore arrested together with their links.

After Sihanouk went to China, he made an appeal through Vietnam in 1977. The Vietnamese told him that they agreed the support by the Vietnamese to attack. For that reason, Mondulkiri was liberated in June. They confiscated the firearms from the soldiers. Some people who held positions were sent away “for tempering” while others were allowed to stay. This took place in 1970. To his knowledge, Vietnamese had relationships with the Khmer troops in 1966. By 1970 there were “plenty of Vietnamese forces” scattered in Rattanakiri and Mondulkiri. The Khmer Rouge sought support by the Vietnamese troops to attack the Cambodian government.

Mr. Lysak then referred to another part of his interview.[17] The witness replied that the Vietnamese provided some aid to the Khmer Rouge. At that time, he was a bodyguard accompanying Lang and Horn who was secretary of the province. They liaised with the Vietnamese side (called Thu, May, Dyk). The Vietnamese promised to provide fuel, medicine ammunition and rice seeds. The witness himself carried aid on trucks. There were sixty trucks loaded with aid from the Vietnamese side. The liaison took place on the provincial district level. During the negotiations, the Vietnamese wanted to transport the aid to Koh Nhek, which the superior Hor denied. Instead, the Khmer subordinates transported the good to Koh Nhek. The rice seeds were used to plant rice. Medicine was sent to the sector level and ammunition to headquarters. As for the fuel, it was used to construct Au Buon Kraom and Au Buon Leu. Mr. Lysak asked whether Au Buon Kraom was the same worksite as the one that Khieu Samphan visited in 1974. The witness answered that there was only one worksite in the area. Mr. Lysak referred to his statement again, in which he had said that “it wau as KR who fought Vietnam and not Vietnam who fought us”.[18] In another statement, he had again said that the Khmer Rouge attacked Vietnam and not the other way around. When Mr. Lysak asked why he said so, Mr. Koppe interjected and sought clarification of the document numbers. Mr. Loeng Chauy replied that the Khmer Rouge wanted the Vietnamese troops to fully retreat from Cambodian territory. Thus, they attacked the Vietnamese twice. On the first occasion, the Vietnamese lost 30 soldiers and on the second one they used 60 soldiers, despite the fact that the Vietnamese did not fight back. They communicated over loudspeakers and asked why they were attacked after having been friends beforehand.

Mr. Lysak wanted to know whether Py Nhy and Luoy were soldiers who had been working together with the Vietnamese in 1970. They used to fight together and share their base together. He confirmed this and explained that they were arrested together with their network.

Mr. Lysak sought leave to provide a document to the witness, which was granted. This document was a Supplementary Information Sheet of a Civil Party who will potentially testify and had provided more information on a location.[19] Mr. Lysak said that the Civil Party was a Division 920 soldier and described being detained at a secret security office at the foot of a mountain near the Au Le Poeu stream. Mr. Lysak wanted to know whether the witness knew which security office this Civil Party referred to. He answered that there was no Au Le Poeu stream in Koh Nhek district. He clarified that there was Au Re Nhek and Au Re Nho in Koh Nhek. There was only one dam in Phnom Kraol that was known as Ta Sot. There was no stream nearby, he said. The prison was located nearby that area. With this, Mr. Lysak finished his line of questioning and the floor was granted to the Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyers.

 

Clarifications

Civil Party lawyer Ty Srinna referred to his statement and asked who held authority to remove Ka Sy from his position.[20] Mr. Loeng Chauy answered that it was the sector secretary who had the overall authority at the time. The sector secretary had the authority to remove and appoint and individual in the district. He did not know about the contact this person had to the upper echelon. Ms. Srinna sought more clarification in relation to Trapeang Pring and wanted to know whether it was also known under another name. Mr. Loeng Chauy denied this. On the road from Koh Nhek to Kratie, there was a location called Trapeang Pring.

Ms. Srinna then wanted to know what the relation was of the three office K-16, K-17 and K-11 and how they communicated with the sector. He answered that these offices were under the management of the sector or province. Ro Ya was K-17 and was the worksite for agricultural production. These offices were within the supervision of the province. At the time, there was no telephone communication system, so they mostly communicated through letters that were sent with messengers. These offices all communicated with one another.

Ms. Srinna then wanted to know whether the matter of the 18 people who fled to Vietnam was known to all offices. He told the court that the information was communicated to all offices if there was an event to take measures.

The witness never attended meetings, but was there as a messenger and served meals and water to the participants. He attended a rally at Au Boun Kraom worksite to celebrate Khmer New Year and the content was about the war with Vietnam. The rally was small. Small rallies occurred frequently about the arrests of people. Chief of units would usually reside over small rallies and announce the arrests of people.

She then turned to the occasion when he saw a truck and asked whether there were women and children on it. He answered that the truck was covered completely. He went to fetch water close to the vehicle. There was a person who asked him whether Ka Sy was alive. Before leaving, the witness briefly held this person’s hand, but did not dare to give him water.

Ms. Srinna inquired whether torture was inflicted on those who were detained at K-11. Mr. Loeng Chauy replied that he was not sure. The people who were released discussed their detention with him, but he was not sure about this matter. At this point, the President adjourned the hearing for the last break.

 

 

Conflict with Vietnam

After the break, the floor was granted to the Nuon Chea Defense Team. Defense Counsel Victor Koppe read an excerpt of the witness’s statement, in which he had said that “the Vietnamese seemed to incite” conflict.[21] Mr. Koppe wanted to know what he meant with this. He answered that when the Khmer Rouge soldiers attacked the Vietnamese troops, Vietnamese troops did not want to retreat from the territory. “They said that they would need a few days to remove their material first.” However, the Khmer Rouge did not wait and immediately engaged in the attack. He confirmed that he was not a soldier himself. However, he “learned a few things” when being in the division.

Mr. Koppe wanted to read an excerpt of an interview of a division 920 soldier, to which Mr. Lysak said that it was the summary of the interview and not the actual statement.[22] The witness disagreed with the statement and said that the Khmer Rouge attacked first. “It was us who attacked them”, Mr. Loeng Chauy said. Mr. Koppe read another excerpt of another witness, who had said that the Vietnamese attacked Cambodia first in the night of the 22 January.[23] Next, Mr. Koppe referred to the minutes a Standing Committee of 14 May 1976, in which Son Sen had said that they respected the orders of the higher echelon not to increase tensions in Mondulkiri.[24] The witness replied that he stood by his statement. The President said that the Khmer Rouge attacked the Vietnamese in 1973. Mr. Koppe said that he referred to the period after 1975. The witness reiterated his previous position. The people who lived with him used to be a soldier and partook in the attack. He repeated: “The Vietnamese did not attack the Khmer troops in Khmer territory”. The Khmer Rouge attacked the Vietnamese, because the Vietnamese refused to retreat quickly. Both countries wanted to claim a part of a territory. If thinking that Au Treng was part of Cambodia, the Vietnamese had encroached onto the territory, but the Khmer Rouge attacked them. This took place in late 1977.

Mr. Koppe read a telegram of 9 June 1977 from the Political Section of Division 920 to Son Sen, which stated that the Vietnamese dropped bombs and provoked conflict.[25] Another telegram also seemed to suggest, Mr. Koppe said, that the Vietnamese were the aggressors.[26] Mr. Lysak interjected and requested counsel not to classify evidence. Mr. Loeng Chauy replied that he did not know about this, since he worked in Ro Ya. Mr. Koppe asked whether this was also the reason that he did not know anything about the Vietnamese incursions after having been removed from his position. The witness said that this might be the case and that they usually received information through meetings and rallies. Mr. Koppe asked whether it was fair to say that he had no knowledge whatsoever about Vietnamese attacks after this date, to which Mr. Loeng Chauy said that he received information about encounters with other people, for example.

Mr. Koppe referred to his DC-Cam statement. The witness had indicated that Svay had “hidden Vietnamese spies in the province”. [27] Mr. Loeng Chauy recounted that Svay was the secretary of Koh Nhek District and did not know that he was an agent hidden inside. Hor, Saroeun and Kham Phoun accused him that he was hiding Vietnamese spies. Svay was questioned in a meeting, during which Svay had said that he did not hide any Vietnamese. That night he shot dead Ky, who was the secretary of the region. Svay could escape and shot another person who was in charge of the generator and in response this person shot him to death. There was a person who was under accusation of being connected to FULRO and was accused of being a traitor. When Mr. Koppe repeated his question, Mr. Lysak interjected and said the question was repetitive. Mr. Koppe said that he had not received a clear answer. He replied that Svay was suspected of having a relation with Vietnamese, but it was only a suspicion. “No one was sure that Svay had connection with FULRO or [the] Viet Cong.”

Mr. Koppe referred to a statement he had referred to earlier which talked about Vietnamese spies.[28] The witness replied that he did not know about the relation between Svay and Kham Phoun.

 

FULRO

Mr. Koppe inquired about FULRO. He replied that FULRO “frequently went in an out” in the location. Members of FULRO were transported to Phnom Penh. He used to help ten FULRO into the territory. At first, FULRO people were killed, but one time members of FULRO were transported to Phnom Penh by airplane. One time, he helped driving a boat to help FULRO members into the territory. He used to see them with “nice clothes and watches on their wrists”, while they had only one set of clothes in the beginning. He said that they were the resistance forces for Vietnam and not Cambodia. There were members of FULRO in Mondulkiri “long time ago”. Later on, FULRO members were hiding within the Viet Cong forces. Mr. Koppe read an excerpt of the witness’s statement.[29] Mr. Loeng Chauy said that the interviewer might have mistaken the notes. Rattanakiri and Mondulkiri were two different provinces. In 1970, when the Vietnamese troops attacked Cambodian territory, FULRO worked together with Lon Nol forces to attack the Vietnamese troops. FULRO had relations with the US, so FULRO called upon the US to bomb the Vietnamese troops. Soldiers and ordinary people were killed. There was a battalion of FULRO in Mondulkiri. He was about 17 years old at the time and learned about the situation. Mr. Koppe asked what FULRO had to do with Svay and Kham Phoun and allegedly bringing Vietnamese spies into the territory. He replied that he did not know about the relation of Svay, Kham Phoun and the Vietnamese other than that there was an accusation.

Mr. Koppe referred back to the statement of the 920 division soldier, who had talked about FULRO as well.[30] The witness recounted that FULRO was located not far away from the province. They were posted in the forest. “Wherever Khmer Rouge [were], there were FULRO”, he said.

 

Khmer Sar

Mr. Koppe asked what the witness could say about the Khmer Sar (White Khmer) and wanted to know whether they were also active after 1975.[31] Mr. Loeng Chauy replied that the Khmer Sar were active between 1973 and 1975. “There were no issues in relation to White Khmer” after 1975. He heard that there were issues with KTB and CIA agents after this date. The witness said that he did not know who the leaders were of the Khmer Sar other than that they originated from former soldiers. As for their objectives, he said that some shooting happened and executions took place when the Khmer Sar emerged, but he did not know their objectives or about their leadership. He said that he had also asked other people where they originated from. Asked about Chhay Si Than, he replied that he was the child of Ut.[32] After 1972, the region was considered to be in Mondulkiri and Chhay Si Than was arrested. He and two other inmates broke their shackles and could flee. Chhay Si Thorn was alive nowadays, but he himself did not know what Khmer Sar are. “No one knows for sure about the leadership of Khmer Sar”. This prompted Mr. Koppe to ask whether he had heard of Chan Chakrei, Chhuk, Ya, or Khieu Meas. Mr. Loeng Chauy said that he had heard of Ya who was the Northeast Zone chief. Mr. Koppe wanted to know whether he had heard of Koy Thuon, also known as Thuch, which the witness confirmed. The announcement had been that Ta Thuch and Ta Ya had been arrested. Asked about the reasons of their arrests, he remembered that there was a rumor that “they wanted the money to circulate in the market and some others said that they had something to do with the yuon”. He had heard about this two months before his arrest. This was “immediately after December”. Since Mr. Koppe was about to move to his next topic, the President adjourned the hearing. It will continue tomorrow, March 29 2016, at 9 am with the testimony of Bun Loeng Chauy, followed by 2-TCW-1012.

 

 

[1] E3/5178, at 00197860 (KH), 00274099 (EN), 00485184 (FR).

[2] E3/5636, at 00042465 (KH), 00711200 (EN), 00727123 (FR).

[3] E3/5178, at 00197857 (KH), 00274095 (EN), 00485180-81 (FR).

[4] E3/5636, at 00042469 (KH), 00711205 (EN), 00727126 (FR).

[5] E3/5178, at 00197862 (KH), 0274101 (EN), 00485186 (FR).

[6] E3/5178, at 00197858 (KH), 00274096-97 (EN), 00485181-82 (FR).

[7] E3/5178, at 00197861 (KH), 00274099 (EN), 00485185 (FR).

[8] E3/5178, at 00197866 (KH), 00274104 (EN), 00485190 (FR).

[9] E3/5221, at 00236701 (KH), 00239491 (EN), 00267790 (FR).

[10] E3/1645.

[11] E3/5636, at 00042484 (KH), 00711224 (EN), 00727140 (FR).

[12] E3/5178, at 00197865 (KH), 00274103 (EN), 00485189 (FR).

[13] E3/156, at paragraph 13.

[14] E3/2251, E3/1651.

[15] E3/5636, at 00042474 (KH), 00711212 (EN), 00727131 (FR).

[16] E3/5178, at 001978857 (KH), 00274095-96 (EN), 00485181 (FR).

[17] E3/5178, at 00197860 (KH), 00274099 (EN), 00485184 (FR).

[18] E3/5178, at 00197858 (KH), 00274097 (EN), 00485182 (FR) and E3/5180.

[19] E3/6760A.

[20] E3/5178, at 00197863 (KH), 00274102 (EN), 00485187 (FR).

[21] E3/5636, at 00042473 (KH), 00711210 (EN), 00727130 (FR).

[22] E3/7960, at 0851665-66 (KH), 00450295 (EN), 0073898-99 (FR).

[23] E3/887, at 00185223 (EN), 00021448 (KH), 00283096 (FR).

[24] E3/221, at 00000813 (KH), 00182696 (EN), 00386178 (FR).

[25] E3/1099, at 00509691 (EN), 0376547 (KH), 00519863 (FR).

[26] E3/1030, at 00324806 (EN), 00033312 (KH), 00621650 (FR).

[27] At 00042477 (KH), 00711216 (EN), 00727134 (FR).

[28] E3/7960, at 00450295 (EN), 00851666 (KH), 00738989 (FR).

[29] E3/5636, at 00042468 (KH), 00711204 (EN) 00727126 (FR).

[30] E3/7960, at 00450296 (EN), 00763900 (FR), 00851667 (KH).

[31] E3/5178 and E3/5636, at 00711205 (EN), 00042468-69 (KH), 00727125 (FR).

[32] E3/5178, at 00197857 (KH), 00485181 (FR), 00274096 (EN).