Civil Party Gives Information About Forced Marriage in Mondulkiri

 

Today, March 31 2016, Civil Party Sun Vuth finished his testimony in front of the ECCC. He provided further detail on his arrest and detention and talked about forced marriage. At the end of the day, oral submissions were heard regarding a request by the Nuon Chea Defense Team to prolong the scheduled testimony of 2-TCW-916 in relation to the S-21 segment.

 

Marriage

All parties were present and Nuon Chea followed the hearing from the holding cell. The floor was first granted to Judge Jean-Marc Lavergne, who turned to the list of 100 Division 920 soldiers who had been sent to S-21 and released. Civil Party Sun Vuth said that he did not recognize any of the names. Judge Lavergne asked whether it was correct that the Civil Party was asked to get married under the Khmer Rouge, but refused to do so. Mr. Vuth confirmed this. Judge Lavergne pointed out that his Supplementary Information Sheet seemed to indicate that he had been forced to marry in 1975 and also indicated the name of the woman he married. Mr. Vuth replied that the interviewer might have done a mistake. He was supposed to marry a woman called Nhoeu, but refused to do so and consequently did not get married. Asked about the general procedure of the weddings, he recounted that the couples had to make a commitment during the wedding to be faithful and honest during marriage, since they would otherwise be perceived as not implementing Angkar’s instructions. Moreover, “after the marriage, they would be monitored whether they consummated the marriage or not, and then such a report would be made to the upper echelon”. He heard this through people who monitored the couples and who had to make reports to the upper level. The monitoring was conducted by soldiers. If the couples did not consummate their marriage, a report would be sent that they disobeyed the instructions of Angkar and the upper level would take them for re-education. “If a woman didn’t love the husband”, she would be taken for re-education and taught that she had to love her husband based on instructions from Angkar. The wedding of the seven couples was held in Koh Nhek in mid-1976. This was the only marriage he knew of. Not every combatant was sent to marry. Mostly, Angkar selected those men who were 30 years old at least, while the minimum age was 29 or 30 years. “This did not happen to combatants who were 17 or 18 years old”. He confirmed that he was born in 1956 or 1957.

 

Moral Commandments

He received military training and training on 12 moral commandments for soldiers. They had to discipline themselves not to touch any belongings of civilians and not “engage in any love affair” with other female combatants. They were taught that they should strictly adhere to instructions from their superiors or Angkar and that they should not betray Angkar. They were told “not to deceive Angkar”.

Judge Jean-Marc Lavergne referred to Issue Ten of October 1978, in which they had talked about the necessity to follow the 12 Revolutionary Principles in order to fight against the Vietnamese invader.[1] He replied that it was difficult for him to understand all the commandments and that he followed orders. To his understanding, they should not collude with the enemy. “But as I said, I was not that knowledgeable”. Judge Lavergne referred to one of the principle, which said that they should “have a quick to ignite anger toward the enemy”.[2] He then asked about sexual relations and asked whether these were allowed outside marriage. He replied that married couples were allowed to be together at a certain place at a certain time and were subject to monitoring. Mr. Vuth said that “it was our nature to chitchat with the opposite sex”, but that this was prohibited under the Khmer Rouge. If talking to a woman alone, they might be disciplined. They would be punished if suspected of having engaged in moral misconduct. They would not be killed for minor offences but simply called to a self-criticism meeting. At this point, the floor was given to Nuon Chea Defense Counsel Victor Koppe.

Mr. Koppe pointed to Rule 6 of these principles, which set out:

“Do not behave in any way that violates females” and stated that “as for the current issue of setting up a family, there is no obstacle. This is just based on two principles: first, both parties agree. Second, the community agrees.[3]

Mr. Koppe asked whether the first principle was the reason for him not being forced to marry. The witness said that sometimes couples did not get along well. For example, “one side was more good-looking than another. One was ugly, for example”. He said that one of the couples did not fit well, because the husband had a very fair complexion, while the wife “was dark, ugly and fat”. Thus, the couple did not match well. He could only remember the names of Ly and Orn who got married on that occasion.

Comrade Ban and Comrade Nhoeu were re-educated when they protested not to get married. He did not know much about the action taken regarding the people who committed offenses.

 

Division 920 soldiers

Mr. Koppe then turned to the topic of 100 prisoners and wanted to know whether all those 100 names were read out to him, which the witness confirmed. “I listened to the names read out to me.” Mr. Koppe said that half of the 920 members also had aliases. He confirmed that he was read all the aliases, but did not know the name “of a person”. Mr. Koppe inquired whether the column with the titles of the soldiers were also read out to him. He replied that he did not know the names well, because “maybe the names have been changed”. Mr. Koppe asked whether he was in a completely different company and whether this was the reason that he did not know the names. He answered that he did not know any of these names. “I did not know whether they really came from Division 920”. He said that even when coming from a different regiment, he should have recognized at least a few of them. He was in company 3 in battalion 11. He did not remember the number of soldiers in Division 920. When he was dispatched from Rattanakiri, there were around 570 combatants, but that was just his estimate, since he had been a low-ranking soldier. Mr. Koppe inquired whether it would be accurate that Division 920 had around 3500 soldiers in February 1977.[4] At this point, International Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer Marie Guiraud objected and said that the witness had already said that he did not know the number. Presenting a number to him would put words into his mouth. He said that he saw that the number of soldiers was small and that the maximum of the number of soldiers of Division 920 would have been 700. He was a company leader for only two months before being assigned to patrol the borders.

When Mr. Koppe asked whether it was possible that around 400 soldiers were arrested for possible treason, Mr. Lysak interjected and asked for references. There was a brief discussion about the matter, at the end of which Mr. Koppe asked the Civil Party whether he knew if soldiers from Division 920 were arrested. He replied that Ta Chhin, Ta Say, Khol, and Ban were arrested. Mr. Koppe said that this was not the question, but then provided sources for the numbers.[5] The Civil Party replied that he did not know who created the division. Mr. Koppe read an excerpt of an interview with a cadre, who had said that three divisions were implicated in a plot and all arrested.[6] He did not know whether Division 450 or 820 were involved in these plots.

Mr. Koppe read an excerpt of an interview of a person who had talked about a secret plot to take over Phnom Penh.[7] Mr. Koppe referred to a few documents that seemed to indicate that there had been a plan to plot against the Khmer Rouge leadership.[8]

The witness replied that he had no knowledge about this. He did not know anything about a rebellion against Angkar. “I served Angkar with my full heart”.

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

 

Patrolling the border to Vietnam

After the break, Mr. Koppe gave references for the numbers of Dc-Cam Publication: Khmer Rouge Purges in the Mondulkiri Highlands, which said that more than 400 Division 920 soldiers were rounded up and sent to S-21.[9] Mr. Lysak completed the record by pointing out that there was a list of these arrested 920 soldiers also at the end of the book Mr. Koppe had mentioned. [10]

Mr. Koppe then proceeded with his questioning and asked for concrete examples of his tasks when patrolling the border. He replied that their tasks was to dug trenches and cut spikes. For the battlefield, he was assigned to Au Dam, Au Phoul and another location. They also built traps. Mr. Koppe read another telegram from his division that was signed by Comrade Chhin.[11] This telegram reported on border conflicts and having met Group 7. This group included 50 armed villagers and indigenous people, who said they were patrolling the area. The Civil Party replied that he never heard of the place Thuy Ty Sang. The area was called Tra Yo Sang, he said. He also patrolled in Pich Chenda, Au Dach Dam and Tra Yo Sang. The Civil Party replied that he did not know about this group. They did encounter Vietnamese soldiers when patrolling. When first arriving, he met them “and we shook hands”. He met them at Au Dach Dam and Trapeang Chhouk. At a later stage, the Vietnamese claimed that they territory extended to behind Au Dach Dam. The Civil Party disagreed with this. People at the upper echelon instructed them to fight. “I followed the orders and dispatched my force”. When the Vietnamese arrived again, they shot and seven Vietnamese died. Since this incident, they became enemies. “Wherever we encountered each other, we shot at each other”. They spent their time making spikes and laying traps.

Mr. Koppe read another telegram of 7 November 1977, which mentioned an encounter with the Vietnamese troops from route 13 to route 14.[12] Mr. Koppe inquired whether he recalled this incident of end of October 1977. At this point, Mr. Lysak interjected and said the report was from Kratie and not Mondulkiri. The Civil Party replied that two Vietnamese were wounded by the spike traps and two were killed in the locations that he patrolled. The Vietnamese faced the traps when they entered the Cambodian territory.

Mr. Koppe read another telegram. This telegram was written by Sophea on 20 June 1977 and reported about the 7-Group and border conflicts.[13] Judge Jean-Marc Lavergne pointed out that there were discrepancies between the French and the English version. One version said 20 meters and the other talked about a distance of 20 kilometers. The witness confirmed that he sometimes patrolled the area and that he was not aware of the incident, because he was not at the location at the time, “and I was not involved in the fighting itself”. Mr. Koppe clarified that the Khmer version indicated 20 meters and not 20 kilometers. He engaged in two attacks against the Vietnamese troops while he was at the border. Three Vietnamese died and one Cambodian. “They were actually trespassing into the territory of Democratic Kampuchea.” He ordered the soldiers to shoot at them and the fighting lasted thirty minutes. Mr. Koppe wanted to know whether it were the “Vietnamese troops entered Democratic Kampuchea, trespassing Democratic Kampuchea territory, attacking Democratic Kampuchea territory”. The Civil Party confirmed this and said that the Cambodian soldiers never encroached onto Vietnamese territory. “But they claimed that their territory extended five to twenty kilometers deep into our territory”. He said that this was the reason for the clashes at the borders.

 

Division office

The floor was granted to the Khieu Samphan Defense Team. Anta Guissé asked about his assignment as a company leader. He confirmed that he took over this role. There was more than one messenger in the division. He said that there were around five to six in one division. Since he was the oldest messenger, he was promoted to be in charge of a company. “There was another messenger who was assigned with him”.

Ms. Guissé pointed to his testimony and wanted to know where the division office was that he had talked about yesterday. He answered that it was located in Koh Nhek around 500 meters away from O’Chhbar. He did not know whether this office had a special name. He would sometimes visit the office and stay there for two to three days. Sometimes he went to the division office to make his report before returning to his base. Sometimes they went in a group of two or three people and he never went alone. “Of course we didn’t stay with the commander”. The houses they stayed in were small. Five or six were able to stay in that house. They slept in hammocks. The house was built on round wooden poles and was meant to provide provisional sleeping quarters.

Ms. Guissé asked who the superiors were who allowed him to go to the office. He answered that it was Ta Chhin who authorized his travels. Sometimes he did not have to wait for his authorization. She asked him whether she understood him correctly that he was arrested in November or December 1977, which the witness confirmed. Chhin had been arrested for around two or three months before the Civil Party was arrested. Before his arrest, the people in higher positions were arrested. “And I myself considered that I was a low-ranking combatant”, so he did not think that he would be arrested. He was arrested in Koh Nhek at the military base where he was posted.

Ms. Guissé asked who gave him the authorization to visit the division office from the time of Ta Chhin’s arrest onwards. He replied that he went to the office on his own initiative. He would go to the office after approximately a week. The last time he returned from the office, he would be arrested: “and I was so puzzled by the arrest”.  She asked whether he saw who replaced Ta Chhin after the arrest of the latter. Mr. Vuth replied that he heard that Chhin was sent for a study session. After the arrest of Ta Chhin, Commander Sarun (Ta 05) came from Division 801 to control Division 920.

 

Arrest and detention

She then asked whether he was the only person who was arrested on that day, which he affirmed. They tied him up and blindfolded him after pointing the guns at him. They walked him and “kept pushing me”. He did not have a sense of in which direction they were going. He was brought to a place that was less than half a kilometer away where he was interrogated. They walked for around ten to twenty minutes. It was difficult to walk, since it was nighttime and he was blindfolded. “And of course when they arrested me, I was very fearful about my life.” The blindfold was removed when he was put in the detention room. The day after, two more people were detained in the same room. The room was locked. There were wooden planks that they put between the walls and that they used to partition the room. There were gaps that they could see through. Ms. Guissé referred to his Supplementary Information Form, in which he had said that he had been detained for a year, while he had said that he was detained for six months to the Civil Party Lawyers yesterday and three months and ten days to the Co-Prosecutors.[14] He said it might have been “up to five months that I was detained”. This prompted Ms. Guissé to read his statement from yesterday, during which he had said that the place for meant for temporary detention of one or two months. She asked him to clarify how he had been detained there for five months if it was temporary. He replied that the prison itself was not a proper prison and was meant not meant to house prisoners for a long time.

She asked how he could escape from the prison if the prison was locked. He replied that he had relied on the physical structure of the prison. If the detainee was “a real person with serious offences they could flee if they wished to”.

At this point, the President said that the Khieu Samphan Defense Team would finish their examination of the witness after the break, after which oral submission by the Nuon Chea Defense Team would be heard related to the facts about S-21. He then adjourned the hearing for lunch break.

 

Discrepancies between testimony and Civil Party forms

After the break, the floor was given back to the Khieu Samphan Defense Counsel. Ms. Guissé said that the Civil Party had said that he was not aware of other soldiers from Division 920 being detained at the same detention center as himself. He replied that he did not know about the detainees who were brought there before him. “I do not know whether all of the detainees were from Division 920 or whether they were brought in from other divisions”. She pointed out that he had said that he had said that he could not see the other prisoners, because he had been separated from the others and did therefore not know where they were from. She asked whether he knew how many rooms there were at the detention center. He answered that there were three rooms, including the one in which he was detained. “Each room was not big. Each one could detain around five detainees”. She then asked whether any other prisoner arrived apart from the two who arrived after two days during the detention period of five months, which he denied. The three of them escaped together.

He said that he was interviewed twice. She referred to his information form and said it was dated December 8 2009.[15] He could not remember the date. She asked whether he remembered the name Lap Kuy, which he confirmed.[16] He could also remember having put his thumb print after Lap Kuy had read out the document. Ms. Guissé read out a passage from the first form, in which he had not mentioned any detention.[17] She asked why he had not mentioned having been detained and tortured. He replied that the interviewer only asked him about torture and interrogation later, so he did not mention it first. These questions made him elaborate on his detention and his pain about Angkar having arrested him. “And my answers in the later interview, it fit with the Civil Party Application Form, which focuses on the suffering of the victim”. Ms. Guissé pressed on and said that he had not mentioned torture under the section on physical suffering he had endured.[18] At this point, National Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer Pich Ang interjected and said that the question was repetitive. Mr. Ang said that the Civil Party had forgotten to elaborate on that point during his first interview. The interview was done before the OCIJ had determined the scope of the investigations. Ms. Guissé responded that if there was an explanation, Mr. Vuth could provide so himself. As for the repetitiveness of the question, she said that she had referred to another document in her second question. Mr. Vuth replied that he elaborated on the issue during later interviews on the harm he had suffered. “As I said, I would like to emphasize that it was during the later stages of the interviews that I talk about the suffering”. Turning to the Supplementay Information Form of 21 June 2010, Ms. Guissé said he had contradicted himself with regards to a few issues.[19] She wanted to know when he realized that he had made a mistake when talking about Au Le Peu and not O’Chhbar. He answered that the matter had happened long time ago. He said that he had not known whether his having been a victim was of any concern. He had to put the information about his parents and siblings, he explained, in order to find justice for them. He did not attempt to further any charges against her client, he said. She then said that he had indicated that he became head of a company in 1975 and not in 1977. He replied that he was appointed chief of a company in early 1977 and not immediately after the liberation of Phnom Penh.

He could not remember when exactly it was that he was appointed company chief, but guessed that it was in mid-1977. “I was chief of a company only for about three months.” He had wanted to refuse to be company chief, since he was “rather young” at the time. She asked whether the Civil Party was arrested one or two months after having been appointed company chief, or one or two weeks afterwards. Say from the division appointed him. He said that it was one or two months after his appointment. He insisted that he was arrested either in November or December, despite the fact that Ta Chhin and Ta San had been arrested in February. He apologized for not remembering well months or years.

Moving to her next topic, Ms. Guissé asked about his shackles. He confirmed that they were wooden shackles. There were no other shackles. She wanted to know how he was able to escape and free himself from the wooden shackles around the ankles and the arms and “kick the door down” although this door was locked. He replied that he did not know how he managed to free himself from the shackles. “Maybe it’s kind of superstition”, but he had had a dream before and freed himself because of this. He managed to open the door together with the other two inmates. “I knew that they would kill me, so I had to flee”. He opened the door with a metal bar. It did not make any noise, which is why he could escape. “There was a hut which was about ten meters away from where I was detained”, and he did not wake them up when he fled. Comrade Pheng and Comrade Bay were the ones who beat him up during the interrogation. They were Khmer. At this point, the President announced that the Civil Party could do a Civil Party impact statement.

Mr. Vuth addressed the Court:

Civil Party Impact Statement

Mr. President, I have two points that I like to put to the accused through you, Mr. President. I was instructed to be a soldier to serve the nation and later on, I was arrested. And I felt so offensive for that. I served the nation and why was I arrested and accused of betraying Angkar? I sacrificed my life for the motherland and the party. And I’d like the accused to give me explanation why did that happen. And also my parents were killed along with some of my siblings and relatives. My father did not do anything wrong, although he was a first deputy commune chief during the previous regime. And in 1975, while I was in Rattanakiri, to serve in the army, I was not with my father. And I, at that early stage, I did not know about the fate f my parents, since I focused myself on serving the nation and the party. And later on I learned of their after that they had been killed. And that had been painful. … And I’d like to have explanation for the reason for their death.

He wanted to know the reason “why innocent people, who did nothing wrong like my parents were killed? And I want responses from the accused of course through you, Mr. President, so that I may be relieved.”

 

The President informed the Civil Party that the accused exercised their right to remain silent. The President thanked the Civil Party and dismissed him.

 

Oral Submissions regarding segment on S-21

The President then announced that oral submissions would be heard regarding a submission related to the S-21 segment. The Nuon Chea defense had informed the Chamber and the parties that they wished to make an oral respond to the proceedings related to S-21. They highlighted their concern about the duration and scheduling of 2-TCW-916 and disclosure of documents from other cases into the topic of S-21 and internal purges, since they needed to review these disclosed documents.

Mr. Koppe first addressed the issue of 2-TCW-916. He said that the now-planned four days of testimony were “manifestly insufficient”, since he was the most important witness in 002/02. He pointed out that there were 4,000 pages of statements and transcripts, this witness had participated in 21 hearing days and 13 days in Case 002/01. According to E301/9/1/1/3, Mr. Koppe argued, facts needed to be established anew according to the severance order. He said that they had originally requested 13 days, but now submitted that they needed to cross-examine the witness for a minimum of four days to address all matters that they needed to discuss with him.

Turning to his second point, he sought clarification on the order of questioning of this witness. He had been requested to appear by both the Co-Prosecutors and Defense. Thus, it was helpful to know in which order they would examine this witness to be able to prepare.

Third, he said that they had requested to seek clarification on whether all new evidence created by the Office of the Co-Investigating Judge had been disclosed, and if not, when this would take place. This was triggered, he said by two things: first, there was a new interview of witness 2-TCW-916 he “seemed to be a bit agitated when responding to questions” and it seemed like he was shown new evidence to him. Second, it was triggered by a submission in relation to a list of prisoners related to Division 920 soldiers. The Co-Prosecutor seemed to suggest that there was new evidence related to this list which might dispute the fact that the prisoners were in fact released. If there was new evidence with regards to S-21, he requested to have a recess period whenever new evidence was presented. He said that the two days that were granted to the parties in preparation for S-21 were relevant to disclosures.

The floor was granted to the Khieu Samphan Defense Team. Ms. Guissé said that the time allotted for the appearance of 2-TCW-916 was “particularly short”. She argued that when they had documents to be disclosed, it took time. She said that she did not know how the parties could examine and cross-examine the witness in four days. She supported Nuon Chea’s application based on the condition that the four days mentioned were only allotted to the Nuon Chea Defense Team. She said that two days for herself were the minimum.

Mr. Lysak took the floor. He said that they would not be opposed to having some more time allotted for the witness. He disagreed with the position that they would have to start anew with the witness. He therefore said that 12 days seemed to be too much, but they would not object to doubling the time that is scheduled at the time. He said that he did not have any problem with the Co-Prosecutors having the lead with the witness. He pointed out that the witness had aged over the last year and that it might not be possible to have full days. Days may have to been split up.

On another point, he said that “I always stayed very measured in this court and stay so today”.  He said that the defense team had always complained about having received too many documents. As a result of the defense’s complaint, the Co-Prosecution was only disclosing exculpatory evidence. [20] The first answer was therefore that there was no new evidence “that we are sitting on”. If the defense now “change their tune” and want them to disclose all relevant documents, this was “a problem”. As for first example that Nuon Chea Defense Counsel had raised in February 2016 interview of 2-TCW-916, Mr. Lysak that the OCIJ had simply derived a sub-list from the OCP master list and not introduced new evidence.[21] As for the second point, he said that the list that had received attention in the list a few years ago had come up in court yesterday. There was no new evidence from Case 003 and Case 004 relating to this list. Instead, there was evidence that has been on the Case File for years. They had found one document after the press had reported on this list and had filed it in a list two years ago.[22] This were DC-Cam Field Reports. DC-Cam had found two people who had not been released but sent to 703 prison and then to Prey Sar, before escaping: “One day, at home, on my own computer, and I only have a small sampling of the s-21 list, . . . I started looking after the date of this release. And by myself on my laptop at home with my 6 year old on top of me, I managed to find reference to at least 20” soldiers who were returned to S-21 later. [23] He gave one example of three people who had been to Prey Sar and then were returned to S-21 two months later. [24] This was why, he argued, he had said yesterday that the prisoners were in fact not released. Hence there was no reason for delaying the start of the S-21 segment. Even the new interview by 2-TCW-916 was contained “nothing groundbreaking”.

International Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer Marie Guiraud said that they did not object to granting extra time to examining the witness and had no further objections.

The floor was given back to Nuon Chea Defense Counsel to respond to the observations. He said that it was not their intention everything that had been established in Case 001 Judgment. There were some issue that they were “ready to accept”. Neither did they have any problem to have shorter days because of the health issue of the witness. Mr. Koppe said that he was not sure why the Prosecution was surprised at the request for clarification whether there was new evidence. It had not been clear in the interview whether new evidence was presented. Lastly, he pointed out that this issue with the release of 100 prisoners started with Nuon Chea defense having access to a DC-Cam publication of January 2011. In this document they had concluded that the prisoners were released.[25] He said that he rather relied on the research done by DC-Cam who spoke Khmer instead of relying on the research by the English-speaking Co-Prosecutor. There were at least 80 on the list that the Co-Prosecutor had not been able to track down. It was therefore an early conclusion to determine that the prisoners had been sent to Prey Sar and then back to S-21. Mr. Lysak said that the document counsel was referring to was a brochure by DC-Cam. “No effort was made to see whether they appeared again”. In the other document, DC-Cam had done follow-up research and had also found that they were sent to Prey Sar.[26] The first document was merely a publication of the list and not based on field research.

Judge Lavergne asked whether both DC-Cam publications were on the Case File. Mr. Lysak and Mr. Koppe gave the respective references.[27] The President thanked the parties.

The President adjourned the hearing at 3 pm. It will continue Monday, April 4 2016 at 9 am with the testimony of 2-TCW-827 in relation to the treatment of the Cham people.

 

[1] E3/765, at 00376472 (KH), 00540021 (FR), 00539989-90 (EN).

[2] 00540026 (FR), 00539995 (EN).

[3] E3/765.

[4] E3/849.

[5] E3/1664, at 00397617 (EN), footnote 137.

[6] E3/8989, DC-Cam interview with a cadre, 01208401 (EN), 0095887 (KH).

[7] E3/7535, 20 January 2005, at 00324168 (EN), 00324206 (FR), 00087817 (KH).

[8] E3/7540, at 00337712 (EN), 00364274 (FR); E3/7583, at 00407996 (FR), 00053869 (KH)

[9] E3/1664, on page 4, 00397577 (EN).

[10] E3/1664, 00742841 (KH), 00707392 (FR), 00397712 (EN).

[11] E3/8377, at 00305245 (EN), 00021458 (KH), 00643478 (FR).

[12] E3/978, at 00324808 (EN), 00020884 (KH), 00623016 (FR).

[13] E3/1030, at 00033312 (KH), 00324806 (EN), 00623150 (FR).

[14] E3/6760, on page 1.

[15] E3/6760, December 8 2009.

[16] E3/6760, at 00565433 (KH).

[17] Ibid., at 01219596 (FR), 01219593 (EN), 00565431 (KH).

[18] E3/6760, at 01219597 (FR), 01219593 (EN), 00565432 (KH).

[19] E3/67601, at 01213545 (F)R, 01194793 (EN), 00586074 (KH).

[20] E363/3.

[21] E319/42.3.3, at answer 30-31.

[22] E305/13.23.

[23] E3/8643, E3/2181 (list of three people)

[24] E3/1668 (list of two people); E3/8460, (list of 10 prisoners from S-21D)

[25] E3/7236.

[26] E3/8778.

[27] E3/8778 (field research); E3/7326 (brochure by DC-Cam).

 

Featured Image: Civil Party Sun Vuth (ECCC: Flickr).