S-21 And Choeung Ek Guard Testifies About Executions

 

Today, former S-21 photographer Nhem En concluded his testimony. He was confronted by the defense teams with statements of other witnesses and other documents that challenged his credibility. Next, former S-21 and Choeung Ek guard Tay Teng took his stance. He gave evidence on the procedure of prisoners arriving at Tuol Sleng and executions carried at Choeung Ek. He described the procedure of executions and admitted having killed people himself.

 

Questions by the bench

All parties were present with Nuon Chea following the hearing from the holding cell. The President announced that the court would first hear the remainder of Nhem En’s testimony and would then hear 2-TCW-865.

Judge Claudia Fenz instructed the witness to give short answer. She then asked whether the photographs that he claimed to be in possession of had been taken by him. He said that they were produced by himself during 1975 and 1979. He only had the printouts and no negatives. He had some original video tapes and some tapes were sent to him from Germany. The audiotapes were not taken between 1975 and 1979. He had some video tapes that originated from that time period. Judge Fenz wanted to know why the audiotapes were sent from Germany if he had taken them. He said that no one took care of the documents during the war time. His videos and audios were in possession of other people overseas, since he did not take them with him. Some video and audiotapes were sent to Pol Pot and Son Sen. He then clarified that he did not have audiotapes and videotapes that were taken between 1975 and 1979. He did have printouts of photos of that time. Judge Fenz inquired whether she could find the copies of the photographs at DC-Cam. He replied that there was no copyright law in Cambodia, which was why some ended up all over the world, and some of them at DC-Cam. “I personally have not any favor to hand these photographs to DC-Cam.” He said that he gave DC-Cam only two photographs. Judge Fenz asked whether anyone from the court went through the remaining photographs. He said that “they made two trips to Anlong Veng” when he was deputy governor there. He could not remember the names, but remembered that they were people from the court and Youk Chhang from DC-Cam. He showed them all the photographs.

 

Doubts of credibility

The floor was granted to the Khieu Samphan Defense Team. She inquired as his role as a child in the military. He transported logistics to the front battlefields. He carried guns and provided food supply. They sometimes had clashes with Lon Nol soldiers.

In his book Nhem En- The Photographer of the Khmer Rouge he had said that his tasks were to dance and perform revolutionary songs while he was in the military, and that he had to carry food supply and ammunition in addition to that.[1] He said that he partook in art performances and sang.

As for his trip for China, Son Sen, Uncle Nat and Uncle Phin – former commander of Division 703 – had assigned him to go there. His immediate superiors were Excellency Son Sen and Nat, he said. He confirmed that he only got to know Duch in mid-1976.[2] In light of this, she read an excerpt of his Written Record of Interview of 2002, in which he had said that Duch allowed him to go to China and that this person loved him.[3] She asked him to explain this point. Mr. En replied that there was a committee, which was comprised of four people: Son Sen, Ta Nat, Ta Phin and Ta Duch. These four people were in charge of security at Tuol Sleng. Sometimes Duch asked him to take photographs at his house of his babies. Ms. Guissé said that this did not answer the question. He explained that Duch was sitting with Nat and Son Sen and that he only got to know him clearly after China. She asked whether it was correct that he said that he knew Duch before he went to China, which he confirmed. “Because I attended that meeting before I went to China, so I saw his face”. He confirmed that Duch gave him the nickname he had mentioned in his Written Record of Interview, but did not remember when. Duch “took interest in me” when he started working at Tuol Sleng and noticed his hard work. He said that many newspapers had interviewed him and that he might have made slight mistakes in the interviews. The President reminded the witness once again to give concise answers.

Ms. Guissé sought further clarification about his Written Record of Interview, in which he had said that his parents were poor parents, while he had said that his father was a school principal on his first day of hearing, and in his book he had said that his father was a former district governor.[4] He explained that his father was a former district governor before Mr. En was born. When his mother died, “the situation was difficult”, since he had so many siblings. After this time, his family were peasants in some areas. Before 1965, his father was the Kampong Leang District Chief. Between 1975 and 1979, his older brother was the chief of the district as well. The President advised the witness again to give short answers and speak slowly. The President said that he was usually a fast speaker, but had taught himself to speak slowly, since he was the President of the Trial Chamber.

The witness then said that his father was the deputy chief of the district and not the chief himself. Ms. Guissé asked whether it was correct that the photography unit consisted of six members, and that Sreang was the head of three of them. He confirmed this. She then pointed to an interview he had given to a newspaper, in which he had said that he had five assistants: Ry, Sam, Nyt, Song and Sreang. ^[5] He told the Court now that Ny, Song and Sreang were in a different unit and that he had only two assistants. Ms. Guissé asked why he had said that all of the photographers were his assistants in the interview. He said that this was true. “I came back from China in the training. … But I considered myself the chief”. Two more people were leaders. He was more specialized in photography than the others, which was why he considered himself as a chief. “Strictly speaking, I could be considered the chief or not the chief.” She said that he had also described himself as a team leader on page 33 in his book. She referred to Nim Kim Sreang’s statement, in which Sreang had said that En was his apprentice.[6] The witness said that he did not understand this. “I have a different version from Sreang’s.” He said that he did not learn from Sreang but learned in China and from text books. He had text books from China, but they had been sent to Australia. In 2008, he had provided the books to the court already, he said. “So you can go and ask the court”. Mr. Lysak said that the witness was correct and that his notebook was on the case file.[7]

Ms. Guissé said that Duch had said in his testimony that he was the son of a staff member at S-21 (in the Khmer version, this might have been “apprentice” and not “son”).[8] She read an excerpt of Case 001 witness Suos Thy, who had said that Kong and Sreang were photographers and that he had never heard about Nhem En.[9] He replied that it was the witness’s rights. He had his own evidence, he said, and was the one who took the photograph of Suos Thy.

Cheng – Duch’s messenger – would usually take along the assigned photographer. There were no written authorizations for field trips or missions. Ms. Guissé wanted to know how he knew that it was Son Sen who issued the orders for him to take photographs on missions. He replied that the order was oral. He reiterated that he received orders from Nat and Son Sen. The direct order came to him, since he was recruited to study in China. “Maybe he gave orders directly to me, because he knew that I learned from my studies in China’.

Ms. Guissé referred to a transcript, in which it was stated that there was a unit in charge of taking photographs and shooting films.[10] She wanted to know how Son Sen found time to ask him to take photographs, despite the fact that there was a unit. He replied that his prints would be sent to Son Sen through Phang. However, he was not the only photographer of the regime. Nevertheless, his core task was to take photographs.

Before the hearing was adjourned for a break, Judge Jean-Marc Lavergne clarified that the book Nhem En- The Khmer Rouge Photographer at S-21 was admitted into evidence.[11]

 

 

Retrieving photographs and cameras from Tuol Sleng

After the break, Ms. Guissé queried about the objects he had said he had buried before he left Phnom Penh. He replied that he buried films and cameras. The total number was 335, he said. The cameras were not buried by him, since they were too large. He buried them at around 4 am at the dawn of January 7 1979. He placed them “in a beautiful box” in front of his house. The house was at S-21. He buried it opposite of his house. He placed the box in a “beautiful big jar”. He did not have time to bury all the photographs and film rolls. He pointed to page 27 of his book, where one could see, he said, the cameras that he had buried. “I am a history lover. I love photographs”, he told the court. When he joined the government in 1995, he started to collect all the documents. Some of the contemporaneous documents he had were in Anlong Veng. There were two truckloads of photos, but he could “only retrieve a large portion of them”. After Pol Pot deceased, “Khmer Rouge broke into different fractions, and there were executions.” He went to a secret house of Pol Pot, in which he got documents. There were many documents that he could not take with him, because he could not carry them. He went to this secret house to see Pol Pot. He sometimes went there with soldiers to attend meetings. It was located on Dangrek Mountain.

Ms. Guissé then asked whether he left Phnom Penh in 1979 with the notebook he had taken to China. He replied that the book had been kept with him since then.

Ms. Guissé read an excerpt of the book, in which he had said that children came from different socialist countries to study in China.[12] He replied that the training was conducted in Khmer and interpreted into Chinese. He knew FURO members back then. They may have attended the training sessions in different languages, but he received his training in Khmer. He confirmed that each student had another teacher. Ms. Guissé sought leave to present a page of the notebook to the witness, which was granted.[13] She asked why there was a note in Thai on the notebook. He replied that Thai Krohom also attended the training, which was why they also wrote something on his notebook. Ms. Guissé asked how this was possible if he was alone in the classroom with his individual teacher. Mr. En said that the two words meant “Kong En” (belong to En). The individual who wrote this on his notebook was called Cheala. He did not know whether this person was already deceased. She asked him whether this kind of notebook – the brand – already existed before 1979.[14] He said that this notebook existed already before 1979 and that this notebook was “pretty tattered”.

Ms. Guissé pointed to a newspaper article of 2010, which said that he had attempted to cell cameras and Pol Pot’s shoes for 500,000 dollars. He confirmed this. “After financial and economic crisis, I lost a lot of money”. He attempted to sell this for one million dollars. Ms. Guissé pointed to another document, which had said that he had said in May 2014 to being reluctant to provide an interview to the ECCC if no financial compensation was granted for information provided.[15] Mr. En said that this was true. “I had different positions to hold at the time, as I used to be the deputy governor, so I asked for compensation for the time that I spend as well”. He said that he had established the Nhem En Company. He had a plan, moreover, “to have a business”. He had signed an agreement with a Korean Company to have a plot of land in Siem Reap to open a museum to show photographs. This only related to selling Khmer Rouge songs and books from the time.

He said that he was 56 years old now and wanted to document the history for the next generation. “I did not publish this book, but I am planning to have other books published”. This book was in collaboration with Australian citizens. He wanted to document the Khmer Rouge history, but did not want to say that he was proud of the Khmer Rouge regime.

Turning to her last question, Ms. Guissé asked whether his change of attitude to testify at the Chamber was because he thought that he tribunal would help to publicize his book. He confirmed this and said that “I am here on my voluntary basis to testify what I know”. He also admitted that it was a good opportunity to advertise his book.

 

Confronting the witness with other statements

The floor was granted to Nuon Chea Defense Counsel. He asked whether he had vintage prints, so prints of the negatives that had been produced in 1979. He said that he used to have these vintage prints, but that none of them existed today anymore. Mr. Koppe said that some did exist, but that Mr. En did not seem to have them. Mr. Koppe inquired whether he had a photograph of Ruos Nhim that was printed between 1975 and 1979. Mr. En replied that he had one photograph that was in Siem Reap at the moment. Mr. Koppe said that they had searched for a photograph of Ruos Nhim for years and asked what it described of Ruos Nhim. He replied that it was at a meeting at Le Royal Hotel. He had taken the photograph and many journalists had asked him about it, but he had refused to give it to them, since it was the only one that existed in the world. It was taken in late 1976 or February 1977. Mr. Koppe asked whether he would be willing to have anyone of the ECCC have a look at this photograph and take a picture of this photograph. Mr. En replied that he would need to consider this proposal.

Mr. Koppe wanted to know whether he had witnessed an execution with his own eyes. Mr. En denied this. “I never witnessed any execution. However, I witnessed acts of torture”.

Mr. Koppe confronted the witness with Sreang’s statement, in which he had said that Sreang had never photographed any children, nor seen any, at S-21.[16] Mr. En insisted on his position.

Mr. Koppe asked whether he had tried to destroy evidence on January 7 1979. He replied that he was the only one who had the idea of digging and hiding the camera. He did not know whether anyone had the time to destroy evidence, since the situation was chaotic from 6 am onwards. He replied that the Vietnamese troops were attacking. “Everybody was in panic”. Mr. Koppe said that the Vietnamese troops had already started attacking on 26^th December 1979 and asked why everyone at S-21 had suddenly broken out into panic. Mr. En replied that he went along the Chinese Embassy and could pass through without being fired upon. “Maybe it was the liberation forces who forgave us”.

To repeat the question Mr. Koppe had been prevented from being asked yesterday at the end of the session, Mr. Koppe gave references with regards to the numbers of photos that had been found at S-21. He said that the first reference indicated that 6,000 photographs had been found at S-21.[17] The second spoke of 6,000 negatives that had been found and the third one of 5912 negatives.[18] The fourth one – David Chandler – had indicated a number of 4,300 confessions (and added later that dozens of confessions had to be added to that number).[19] The new prisoner list by the OCIJ indicated that the execution date was available for 5512 prisoners.[20]The report from member of the Chinese Communist Standing Committee Geng Biao indicated that they arrested more than 4,000 people, who, if not put to death, were put in prison.[21] They had discussed this report with Elizabeth Becker on 11 February 2016 (09:42), who seemed to indicate that this number must have come directly from the CPK. Lastly, there was an article in the Cambodia Daily that talked about forensic investigations at Choeung Ek. The chief investigator had examined 6426 skulls at Choeung Ek.[22] This article had not been admitted yet and Judge Fenz reminded Mr. Koppe not to use documents that had not been admitted. Mr. Koppe said that it was public information, but told the witness to disregard the information mentioned there.

Mr. Koppe said that all of this evidence seemed to suggest that around 5,000 people were imprisoned at S-21 and that possibly these people had been executed. When he asked for a reaction to this, Mr. Lysak interjected. He objected on the basis saying that this was a question for an expert. Moreover, he had classified evidence. Mr. Koppe replied that this was not an appropriate objection. Judge Lavergne asked what the purpose was of this question. After a discussion between the bench, Mr. Koppe and Mr. Lysak, Mr. Koppe asked him whether the witness thought this number was correct. Mr. En replied that this was not correct and that many prisoners had not been photographed.

The President thanked the witness and dismissed him.

 

Oral submissions

Next, the President sought for submissions on a request to admit a Phnom Penh Post newspaper article of 6 February 2016 for the questioning of witness 2-TCW-865. Mr. Koppe explained that this article was an article about forensic investigations led by Voeun Vuthy. Mr. Koppe said that they had requested the full forensic report by Voeun Vuthy. Judge Fenz asked why the request was only made now, to which he said that they had only discovered it yesterday. Judge Fenz told him to “get your team to google earlier”. Mr. Koppe shot back: “If you would only know how hard [my team] works, you would not make this remark”. Senior Assistant Prosecutor Travis Farr stated that the first sentence stated that 9,000 bodies had been found and not only 6,000 as mentioned by Mr. Koppe. Since he also considered the article as relevant, he said that the Prosecution had no objection. Mr. Koppe remarked that the number mentioned in the first sentence referred to, in his opinion, Vietnamese exhumations conducted in 1981. Moreover, he said that “I would like to add that the Prosecution also doesn’t google that fast”.

International Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer Marie Guiraud said that they would rely on the Chamber’s wisdom for the newspaper article and had no objection for using the forensic report itself. The Khieu Samphan Defense Team had no objection either. Mr. Koppe remarked that the team intended to do another forensic research at Kraing Ta Chang and that this might be interesting in the future.

Before the court broke for lunch, Mr. Farr sought clarification with regards to the protective measures by the court: the court had ordered yesterday not to mention any location or family members – was it allowed to address him with his name? The President confirmed that his name could be used. The protective measures were used to avoid the journalist and public to obtain information.

---

New witness: Tay Teng

After the break, the President issued an oral ruling on the Phnom Penh Post article. The article was admitted. The decision underlying forensic report was deferred until this report was obtained. The President reminded the parties not to disclose information relating to the address and family members.

Next, witness Tay Teng was introduced to the Chamber.[23] His image and voice were distorted.

The floor was granted to the Co-Prosecutor. National Deputy Co-Prosecutor Seng Leang who inquired about his position before April 19675. He replied that he worked in a division prior to 1975. He was assigned to work in the field in a location named Prey Chamraong. It was located at Kbal Knol. He was part of Division 12 prior to 1975. He worked on the field under this division. It was located along the irrigation system. He was a member of Division 133. He had said that he was in a Battalion 31 in Division 12 in his Written Record of Interview.[24] The witness confirmed this. Nat and Phin were the division leaders. He did not know who they reported to, since he was “simply a combatant”. He could not recall when he was assigned to work at S-21. Phal assigned him to work at S-21 through the head of the 50-member unit. He could not remember who else was assigned to work at S-21. He never went into all buildings, since he “was simply stationed outside” and had no duties inside the buildings. A barbed wired fence surrounded the compound. After his arrival he was under the direct supervision of Him Huy. Him Huy’s group was assigned to guard the outside areas and guard vegetables. He heard people speak about the chiefs: the first person was Duch and the second one Hor. They were assigned to stand guard around 200 to 300 meters outside the building. They stood guard outside the fence of the compound. The houses where he stood guard were residential houses and were located around the entrance of the compound.

There were eight people in his group. They resided in a house outside the compound around 200 meters from the center close to the sewage canal. They had meals together as a group. Him Huy was the chief of his group.

Mr. Leang read an excerpt of Him Huy’s Written Record of Interview, in which Him Huy had said that Teng was a group chief of guards.[25] He replied that he had no position while being at S-21 and was only given a position when he was at Choeung Ek. He did not know whether an interrogation facility existed on the compound. When asked about torture, he had said that he head the prisoners scream when he went to water the plants.[26] He replied that he could not recall the location clearly, but that he would hear the screams when walking past there. It was towards the southern direction near the fence. He did not know how these people were tortured. He saw prisoners being walked for interrogation. He could not recall the building and which direction the building faced. Neither could he recall who walked them. As for the prisoners, “they could walk by themselves”. Other people were with him and saw what happened. Srim was there.

As for his guarding unit, they served two-hour shifts as guards in the afternoon. They were instructed to “be vigilant” in case prisoners tried to escape. They were given weapons. He would return it at the end of his shift. Prisoners were brought in and people from inside came to receive them. They were brought inside the compound near the building. Some vehicles brought in prisoners. He did not know the number of prisoners per truck and could not remember the frequency. He estimated that this took place once or twice per month.

He saw prisoners being transported out of S-21, because Huy assigned him to work at Choeung Ek. He saw prisoners being transported out of the compound, but did not know where they were transported to.

 

Arrests of S-21 cadres

Mr. Leang turned to the arrest of S-21 cadres. Mr. Teng denied having been aware of this. Mr. Leang referred to his Written Record of Interview, in which he had said that he was aware of arrests, but that he could not remember the names of those who were arrested.[27] He replied that he could remember this, but that he could not remember the names.

Three cousins and one uncle were arrested. Tem from Division 12, Uk Saroeun, Uk Savan and another uncle were all arrested. He did not see the arrests of his cousins. However, he was told about their arrests. This matter was raised during a political meeting. He could not remember what political matters were discussed during this meeting.

Mr. Leang handed the floor to his international colleague Travis Farr.

Mr. Farr inquired what his position was at Choeung Ek. Mr. Teng replied that he did not know what he was required in the beginning. Later, Huy told him that he was assigned at Choeung Ek to guard the prisoners who were transported there. He was in charge of a group of six to eight people. He was also asked to dig pits. He was asked to do so by Him Huy.

Him Huy visited the location sometimes and went with prisoners who were transported to Choeung Ek. Mr. Farr then wanted to know how he felt when being transferred to Choeung Ek and whether he felt like he had any choice. He replied that he did not know their plan in the beginning. Later, he was concerned about their plan. “With the human heart, I never did such acts.” He had to perform the duties nevertheless. “At Choeung Ek, people were executed very easily. That is why I was so concerned. But I could not avoid the duties and tasks that I had to perform.” Mr. Farr referred to his Written Record of Interview in which he had said that it was impossible to live with the tigers.[28] He replied that he had a background “which had something to do with my family members”. At the time, he was uncertain whether it was the time “for it to happen” or the time of others. He was worried about himself and thought that the time would come when “the incident would happen to me”.

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

 

 

Choeung Ek

At the beginning of the last session, the witness recounted that he was asked by Him Huy to be vigilant and have an absolute stance. He explained that this meant not to have any attachments to their relatives. Mr. Farr read an excerpt of Him Huy’s testimony. Huy had said that he was asked by Duch whether he was absolute and took an iron bar to kill.[29] Mr. Farr inquired whether he ever faced a situation in which the concept of being absolute and being instructed to kill were linked. At this point, Mr. Koppe interjected and said that Duch had vehemently denied to have done that. The witness said that he did not know about a connection between being absolute and killing. He could not remember when he was transferred to Choeung Ek. Huy took him there.

Mr. Farr wanted to know whether he recalled attending a crime scene re-enactment together with Duch or others. Mr. Farr said that the evidence suggested that the witness was transferred to Choeung Ek in 1977. Mr. Teng replied that he still could not remember.

Mr. Farr read an excerpt of a confrontation with Duch two days after this re-enactment. Duch had said that people were killed at Choeung Ek, because there was a risk of epidemics due to the many dead bodies around S-21.[30] Mr. Teng replied that he did not know about this. He did not smell anything bad at the location that he stood guard at S-21.

As for the living conditions, the witness replied that it was “a typical one”. They worked in the nearby rice fields. He slept in a wooden house. Mr. Farr said that there was a reference to a wooden house in which prisoners were sometimes kept briefly before being executed. Mr. Teng confirmed that it was the same one.

Asked about a bad smell at Choeung Ek, he recalled that not all pits were covered properly and that it therefore smelled badly. He did not like this, but had no choice. The pits were around two by three meters and two meters deep. They were told to dig two or three pits. It took them around two days to complete the pits, but that depended on the soil. They told them two days before that prisoners would be brought in. “For that reason, our group had to be ready with those pits.”

Mr. Farr referred back to Him Huy’s statement. Huy said that there were around 30 people in each pit.[31] Mr. Farr asked whether this refreshed his memory. Mr. Teng answered that he did not know much about this, since his main duty was to stand guard outside. He was assigned to cover the pits afterwards. Prisoners were brought in at around 7 pm and ordered to get off the vehicle. They were instructed to go to a wooden house, which had cells in it. He did not know the exact time that prisoners were brought in, but they were instructed to have the pits ready on that day. Him Huy told him about this in advance. Sometimes his messenger told him and sometimes he came himself.

Sometimes two trucks arrived, but typically only one truck arrived. Sometimes there were over twenty prisoners in these trucks. Him Huy had said that a truck could carry 30 to 40 prisoners. [32] The witness replied that he could not remember this clearly. “If he recalls this clearly, that is his own business”.  The people were handcuffed and blindfolded. The people who escorted the prisoners would guide the prisoners into the room.  “We were on our guard duty at the time”. There were two or three people who came with the prisoners on the truck. Him Huy came on every trip, the witness said. There was light in the wooden house, powered by a generator outside the house. Mr. Farr asked about light bulbs at the fence and pits.[33] The witness replied that there were no light bulbs at the fence. The generator was a common gasoline-powered generator and was therefore not noisy.

If he sound the sounds of killings, it was “so vain”. The people remained handcuffed and blindfolded in the house. Their handcuffs were removed when they were let out to be killed.

 

Executions at Choeung Ek

Mr. Farr then wanted to know whether anyone brought a list with them when the prisoners were brought in, which the witness denied. “For instance, those people would bring prisoners to the location in a group of twenty or thirty prisoners at a time”. When the prisoners were brought away to be killed, they were taken out one at a time until they were all killed. The people who took the prisoners out of the house were from the office who brought the prisoners to be killed. Some prisoners knew that they would be killed when they were taking out. They were crying and they “put their palms together” to beg that they would not be killed.

The prisoners were told to sit at the rim of the pit. “And then that individual was smashed”. Asked about the meaning of smashed, he said that “they did not want anyone to remain”. He was not familiar with the process of execution. They were hit on their back.

Mr. Farr read out an excerpt of the witness’s statement, in which he had said that they were struck with a metal bar on the back of their head and that a knife was used to finish killing them.[34]  The witness said that this was the “usual method of execution”. Mr. Farr showed a short extract of a film that showed Him Huy, who spoke about executions of people at Choeung Ek.[35] The witness confirmed that this showed Him Huy. Mr. Teng said that the methods described by Huy was consisted with what he had experienced.

There was “no clear guidelines for the killing”, but the “killing was the guideline of them”. He learned about this from Ta Man. Huy gave instructions and the witness usually implemented them. However, he did not know how they were usually

Mr. Farr then asked whether his group was also involved in executing prisoners. Mr. Teng denied this. His tasks, he said, were to dig pits, bury the dead bodies and stand guard. The people from the office “did the job”. This prompted Mr. Farr to refer back to the re-enactment, in which the investigator had noted down that Teng had admitted executing prisoners occasionally.[36] Mr. Farr asked whether he remembered having executed prisoners at Choeung Ek. Mr. Teng answered that this statement was correct. He said that “I was forced to do that task”, but that he was minimally involved in it. Asked about an estimate of the number of people who were executed at Choeung Ek, Mr. Teng replied that they could not reach up to 1,000. However, he did not take notes and listed the number of prisoners. He was not sure whether there were more or less than 1,000. Mr. Farr read from the newspaper article which Mr. Koppe had cited earlier. Mr. Teng replied that he did not know how the report was made. Mr. Farr asked whether the witness could confirm that these were his relatives.[37] The first one showed Uk Saroeun of hospital P-98, who was arrested on 25 September 1977. He replied that he could not recall the personal details of Uk Saroeun or when he was arrested. He did not know what happened at the hospital. “He held a position in the hospital and his younger sibling was in the military, and the two of them were taken away.” The second one showed Uk Tem. He confirmed that he was taken to S-21.

The President adjourned the hearing. It will continue Monday, April 25 2016 at 9 am with the testimony of Tay Tem.

[1] At page 11.

[2] 15:32.

[3] E3/7636, 00280459 (FR), 00281408 (KH), 00171307 (EN).

[4] 19 April, at 10:24

[5] E3/7495, 12 March 1977, 00795351 (FR), 00826558 (KH), 0078256 (EN).

[6] E3/7618, at 00164445 (FR), 00164437 (KH), 00164441 (EN).

[7] D108/3/15.2.

[8] E3/7468 (later translated as E3/7648), at 16:11.

[9] E3/7643, at 00164423 (FR), 00162601 (KH), 00162615 (EN).

[10] E1/112.1

[11] E3/9753.

[12] E3/9753, at page 28.

[13] D108/3.15.2, at 00162978 (KH).

[14] At 00162977 (KH).

[15] E398.1.1 and E319/42.3.5, at 0097285 (EN).

[16] E3/7639, at 00162712 (KH), 00162735 (EN), 00338078 (FR).

[17] E3/1684, at 00192676 (EN)

[18] E3/6859

[19] E3/1684, 0192685 (EN), 00191835 (KH), 00357268 (FR).

[20] E393.2

[21] E3/7325, at 01001622 (EN), 01063797 (KH).

[22] http://www.phnompenhpost.com/post-weekend/skull-skull-team-catalogues-kr-killings .

[23] E3/7663, at 00163775 (KH), 00401838 (EN), 00401840-41 (FR).

[24] E3/7663, at 00163776 (KH), 00401836 (EN), 00401841 (FR).

[25] E3/1518, 0016155 (KH), 00164451 (EN), 00164455 (FR).

[26] E3/7663, at 00163777 (KH), 00401837-38 (EN), 00401843 (FR).

[27] E3/7663, at 00163777 (KH), 00401837(EN), 00401843 (FR).

[28] E3/7617, at 00401839 (EN), 00164403-04 (KH), 00401885-86 (FR).

[29] E3/5155, at 00161594 (EN), 00146642 (KH), 00148087-88 (FR).

[30] E3/5766, at 00165437 (EN), 00165428 (KH0, 00165455 (FR).

[31] E3/5155, at 00161592 (EN), 00146640 (KH), 00148085 (FR).

[32] E3/5155, at 00161592 (EN), 00146639 (KH), 00148084 (FR).

[33] E3/5155, at 00161592 (EN), 00146639 (KH), 00148084 (FR).

[34] E3/7617, at 00401877 (EN), 00401883 (FR), 00164401-02 (KH).

[35] E3/56R, also D299.1.46R, at 25 minutes.

[36] E3/5764, at 00197996 (EN), 00181321 (KH), 00181326 (FR).

[37] E3/2274, E3/2026.

Featured Image: Monks in the audience (ECCC: Flickr)