“They had no hope” – S-21 Medic Testifies

Today, May 2, 2016, former interrogator Prak Khan concluded his testimony, before witness Mak Thim took his stance. Under questioning of the defense teams, Mr. Khan gave more information on interrogation techniques, which resulted in a debate about the use in court of the confession of a prisoner interrogated: Nuon Chea Defense Counsel Victor Koppe claimed that it had been proven that this confession was not obtained through torture, while the Civil Party Lawyers and Co-Prosecution argued that the absence of a risk of torture had not been sufficiently shown. Next, former medic Mak Thim told the Court about a two to three month training that he received before working at S-21. He provided evidence with regards to medical treatment that the prisoners received. Between the two testimonies, oral submissions about a request by the Nuon Chea Defense Team to adjourn hearings for four weeks were heard.

 

Torture and mistreatment

All parties were present, with Nuon Chea following the hearing from the holding cell. Trial Chamber President Nil Nonn announced that witness Prak Khan would conclude his testimony, after which witness 2-TCW-808 would be heard. Between the two witnesses, submissions regarding a request by the Nuon Chea Defense Team to adjourn the hearings for four weeks, because of the new OCIJ S-21 list.

The floor was granted to the Nuon Chea Defense Team to examine witness Prak Khan. Nuon Chea Defense Counsel Victor Koppe referred to the witness’ testimony, in which he had said that he had tortured a person called Chhon.[1] He had used the word “tearunkam” in his testimony. Mr. Koppe asked whether this was used at S-21. He replied that “tearunkam” meant torture.

Mr. Koppe said that the President had said that the word “tearunkam” was used in a wide range of meaning, including when a father disciplined a child.

The witness replied that they used two words: tverbar and tearunakam. The witness said that this could also be used for disciplining a child. Judge Claudia Fenz sought more clarification about the exact meaning of this term. The witness replied that he had the “same perception” as when a father disciplined a child.

Mr. Koppe moved on and said that he had said in his testimony that he beat Chhon on his hand, legs and back with nearby tree branches.[2] Mr. Koppe wanted to know whether Chhon was in “severe pain” after having been beaten by Mr. Khan. The witness replied that “of course it was painful for him, since I was beating him”. Asked whether Chhon was bleeding, he replied that he was not, but that you could see the marks. Mr. Koppe inquired whether Chhon became unconscious, which the witness denied. He also denied that it was necessary to stop the interrogation. Medics would only treat the prisoners when there were open wounds.

Mr. Koppe showed a document called ‘Statistics List of Special Brand S-21’ to the witness.[3] This document had already been shown to him during Case 001. Judge Jean-Marc Lavergne interjected and asked Mr. Koppe for references of the highlighted parts.[4] Mr. Khan replied that this was Duch’s opinion and that Duch gave instructions during study sessions at S-21. Duch instructed them on how to interrogate and how to summarize the confessions. Mr. Koppe inquired whether he recognized the handwriting as belonging to one of his colleagues. He replied that to his recollection, this handwriting belonged to Mam Nai alias Chan. “I used to see this handwriting.” The handwriting by Duch was more complicated and difficult to read.

Mr. Koppe referred to another excerpt, and read it out after the duty counsel had difficulties finding the page.[5] This referred to an instruction to “respect organizational discipline”, that no beating was allowed without instructions, and that health was to be considered before beating.

Mr. Koppe asked whether he considered the health issue before beating him with a tree trench. He replied that Chhon’s health condition was good, and that he could only beat prisoners when permission had been granted by Duch. They used political pressure and made the prisoners think of their wives and children to make them confess.

 

Request to use confession

Mr. Koppe submitted that in light of the answers by the witness, the President’s consideration Chhon and the Chamber’s decision had not been subject to torture. Thus, he said that the content of the confession could be used.[6] Senior Assistant Prosecutor Vincent de Wilde interjected and said that the questioning had focused on the first day of interrogation, that Chhon had been interrogated beforehand, and that further days of interrogations followed, it could not be excluded had been tortured. Moreover, the prisoners were held in inhumane conditions, could only sleep on the floor and could hear the screams from other prisoners. Thus, the absence of the risk that this person might have been subject to torture and had not been shown to the Chamber.

International Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer Marie Guiraud supported this argument and pointed to the possibility of psychological torture. Furthermore, as established by the Supreme Court Chamber, a “climate of extreme fear” existed at S-21. Lastly, Ms. Guiraud drew the Chamber’s attention to the Rule 92 motion.

Mr. Koppe answered that the definition of torture under the Convention against Torture had not been met in this case. The conditions in the prison and the climate of fear were not part of the definition. He read out paragraph 484 that said that the Chamber had not been satisfied that the slapping of a prisoner had been severe enough to be considered torture. He argued that the criteria for torture had not been met and that they could therefore use the content of the confession to put a question to the witness.

Judge Fenz asked the witness how often Chhon was interrogated. Mr. Khan replied that he could not remember the number of times. It was more than once. When his superiors were not satisfied with the confession, they would make an annotation to it, after which the old confession would be burned. Judge Fenz asked how he knew what “they wanted to hear.” He replied that he knew this when it was not sent back to him. They would send him a note on the “suspicious points”, such as networks. He was required to ask about the string or network of traitors. He could not recall specific details about the interrogation.

Judge Fenz asked whether there had ever been a person who did not confess in his experience. He replied that he was not able to get confessions from all prisoners. Some prisoners said that they did not know about what he had asked. If they did not confess, they would be ill-treated and tortured. If they did not confess, he would write the same thing as in the previous confession. When Judge Fenz repeated an earlier question, Mr. Koppe stood up and wanted to say that this was repetitive. Judge Fenz addressed Mr. Koppe directly: “You are not interrupting me, counsel”

The witness said that when the prisoners did not confess, he would use counsel. The acts were beating and putting plastic bags on the heads of prisoners, “so that prisoners were terrified”. However, sometimes these acts were not successful in extracting the confession. The trench of the tree was around the size of a pen. During the interrogaton, he would tell them that wife and children were waiting at their home and he would tell them that they would not be able to see their family if not confessing: “the method was to deceive the prisoner to give confession”. Moreover, “the method was to use the psychological pressure and bringing up the issue of family members, and reminding the prisoner that wives and children were waiting [for] them at home”. This was a “deceitful act”, he said.

Prisoners were detained in different cells and were therefore not aware of the confessions the other prisoners gave. He did not know whether prisoners knew about the mistreatment of other prisoners.

After conferring with the bench, the President announced that the Chamber had to review the document based on the confession of Chhon in detail in comparison to the International Convention against Torture. Thus, counsel was prohibited to use that document during today’s questioning. Judge Fenz clarified that if the document was allowed, they would recall the witness. Mr. Koppe said that he wanted to have his questions on the record. Judge Fenz said that this was prohibited, since they would not allow to discuss the contents and therefore put it before the chamber. Mr. de Wilde gave the references for the remaining confession of Chhon.[7] At this point, the President adjourned the hearing for a break.

 

Duties

After the break, Mr. Koppe said that he had seven more subjects to put questions to the witness. He said he would first give the floor to the Khieu Samphan Defense Team and then use the remaining time. He requested two additional sessions to question the witness. As for the Prosecution having equal time to question the witness, Mr. Koppe said that the principle of granting equal time to question a witness did not apply in this case, since the Prosecution had interviewed the witness already in 2006 and one time in Case 001 in 2009. Mr. de Wilde said that the bench had questioned Mr. Khan in 2009 and that the Nuon Chea Defense Team had already used their time. Thus, additional time should be granted to Khieu Samphan Defense Team and not Nuon Chea.

Khieu Samphan Defense Counsel then started her line of questioning by asking whether he had any contact with the guards inside the compound when he was a guard outside, which he said. They would “sometimes chitchat”, but not about issues related to what was happening inside the compound. He confirmed having known Lach Mean. He only got to know him at the end of the regime. After people from Division 703 had been arrested, he got to know their replacement.

Ms. Guissé wanted to know how many guards worked outside the premise of S-21. He replied that they were 12. They stayed at what is now the radio station. She showed a photograph to the witness that showed a gate.[8] They stood guard outside the compound “a little bit away” from the gate. There was another fence than the one on the photograph, namely one made of zinc. This gate was to the west of the radio station and turned into a fire department right now.

Ms. Guissé wanted to know how he checked that the people entering S-21 were authorized to do so. He replied that there was no document issued to him. He recognized the vehicle and driver. Vehicles that did not belong to S-21 were not allowed to enter.

Ms. Guissé referred to a circular directed to S-21 staff members. Rule 8 set out that the Group of 50 had to be present during patrolling.[9] Ms. Guissé wanted to know whether the Group of 50 was indeed responsible for guarding the exterior of the fence. Mr. Khan answered that the 50-Men-Unit was a group of soldiers and in charge of three groups. The members would monitor the guards. Those guards were all under supervision of S-21.

Ms. Guissé asked him to confirm that he never got into contact with the persons who arrested the prisoners before he started his interrogations. He replied that prisoners were not allowed to communicate with one another. When she clarified her question, he answered that the people who arrested the prisoners did not know him.

Ms. Guissé referred to his testimony and asked about his superiors.[10] He answered that Tyt was his superior and was allowed to enter the interrogation rooms. Duch would come to his location “once in a while”, but this was not his daily duty. Mr. Khan had no authority to enter the interrogation rooms unless being authorized to do so. They did not have the right to discuss the content of their work and interrogations.

 

Training sessions

Turning to her next session, Ms. Guissé wanted to know how regularly he attended training sessions with Duch. He replied that this would take place once every week or every two weeks. They never talked about the “war happening outside” during these training sessions. Ms. Guissé read an excerpt of a notebook, which talked about an armed conflict between Democratic Kampuchea and Vietnam.[11] She asked whether he ever heard about an offensive launched at Svay Rieng in 1977. Ms. Guissé referred to an article by the Bangkok Post of 25 October 1978 and wanted to know whether he had heard of these incursions on Democratic Kampuchea territory in late October 1978.[12] He replied that it was not “the full discussion of the matter”. She referred to another press article of 23 October 1978 that referred to Cambodian rebellions against the “Pol Pot clique”.[13] She asked whether he had heard of this and whether there was an arrival of new prisoners at that time. He replied that he could not remember. Ms. Guissé then wanted to know whether the issue of foreign professor Caldwell was discussed at S-21. Mr. Khan answered that he had not heard about this.

She referred to his Written Record of Interview, in which he had said that the idea of pulling out nails from the prisoners had been recommended by Duch.[14] Ms. Guissé asked whether this was told during the training sessions or whether someone else had told him so. Mr. Khan replied that Duch had given them the instruction to use a “round-head nail” to insert it under the nails of prisoners. She referred to Duch’s testimony, in which he had said that he had instructed interrogators not to use such methods.[15] Mr. Khan replied that “Duch never instructed us to stop pulling out nails”, because it was Duch himself who instructed them to do so. He said that Duch might have said this to “avoid getting himself into trouble”. Ms. Guissé wanted to know whether Son Sen came often to S-21, as Lach Mean said, or whether he stood by his statement that he only saw him once. Mr. Khan said that to his recollection, he saw him coming to S-21, but could not recall whether this happened once or twice. Son Sen never came to the prison buildings, but only came to the political school buildings. Duch and Son Sen communicated, which corresponded to the leadership of S-21 communicating with the leadership.

Ms. Guissé then asked whether he remembered whether the principle of secrecy was also passed onto him during the training sessions. He replied that they were repeatedly reminded to remain confidential and maintain secrecy during the training sessions. With this, Ms. Guissé finished her line of questioning.

 

Follow-up questions

Mr. Koppe said that he would like to address further topics and requested additional time being granted (blood-drawing; the killing of a Vietnamese baby; arrests of spouses and children; the witness’s last day in S-21; follow-up questions; Khmer Saray and Khmer Sar; annotations on confessions). Mr. de Wilde said that the Co-Prosecution’s position remained the same. International Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer Marie Guiraud said they relied on the Chamber’s wisdom. The President announced that the request was not granted and that Mr. Koppe would receive an additional 15 minutes due to the time lost earlier during the day. Mr. Koppe said that this constituted a “blatant violation of fair trial rights of Nuon Chea”. He then moved on to question the witness again.

Mr. Koppe asked whether it was true that he was “gone from S-21 for a long period” in 1978, “because of your battlefield injuries”. Mr. Khan answered that there was a relapse of his injury in 1978, since he was wounded on the battlefield. He had problems with his lungs and needed treatment. He did not work during that time. A female medic at S-21 treated him with acupuncture needles. Mr. Koppe asked whether someone told him whether someone told him what the methods and policy were about interrogating prisoners when he came back to S-21. Mr. Khan answered that no new instructions were given to him when he came back. Mr. Koppe wanted to know how long he was away from S-21. Mr. Khan estimated that it was between four and five months.

Mr. Koppe then wanted to know how many copies were made of the confessions. He answered that he made six copies with carbon paper. He gave all copies to Duch and he did not know who Duch gave the copies to. He did not know which copies Duch sent to the upper echelon.

Mr. Koppe asked whether he had received an order by Duch or anyone else to destroy the administration of S-21, such as burning photographs and confessions. Mr. Khan answered that around two weeks before 7 January 1979, there was no instruction to destroy the documents. The remaining documents that they threw into the rubbish bin had to be destroyed. This was related to his interrogation team, but he did not know what Duch’s instructions were. They burned the “wasted documents in the bin”. Mr. Koppe inquired whether he saw a fire in the houses, such as where prisoners were received: “did you see any clear attempts of destruction?” He replied that there was no attempt to burn the interrogation facilities. The table and chairs were still there.

Besides S-21 vehicles, he did not see any other vehicles. He had not heard of a prisoner called Ung Pech. He said he knew Ta Pech. They were fleeing together to Amleang. However, they separated later.

At this point, Mr. Koppe said that it was 11:30, but that he had some important subjects to cover. The President thanked the witness and dismissed him.

 

Oral submission regarding request to adjourn for four weeks

After the break, the President informed the Chamber that submissions would be heard about the request by Nuon Chea for the adjournment of hearings in relation to S-21 witnesses, before 2-TCW-808 would be heard.[16] Two issues emerged

1. should the Chamber adjourn the hearings, and if yes, for how long?
2. were there any objection to documents that were used for the revised list of S-21 prisoners?

The floor was granted to the Co-Prosecutors. Senior Assistant Prosecutor Dale Lysak said that the Co-Prosecution was opposed to the four-week adjournment. He argued that it was not valid that the revised OCIJ prisoner list called for a lengthy adjournment. The documents had been on the case files for a long time. If the defense felt it necessary to examine document by document, they should have done so “a long time ago.” Thus, there was no legitimate reason to have a four-week recess, he said. The allegations issued against the accused were part of the closing order six years ago, and the defense had therefore time to prepare for this. Thus, the Co-Prosecution was opposed to a four-week adjournment, since there was also a public interest in moving the case forward.

He said that there was a way, however, to continue with this trial while giving the defense time to prepare for the S-21 witnesses.

There were three remaining S-21 witnesses (after 2-TCW-808). One of them, 2-TCW-906, was not connected to the S-21 prisoner list, but would testify to general events at Choeung Ek and other sites. Thus, 2-TCW-906 should be heard this week. However, 2-TCW-816 and 2-TCW-916 were complex witnesses that had many relevant documents. He suggested to hear 2-TCW-808 and 2-TCW-906 this week. In contrast to an adjournment, the Chamber could call witnesses related to internal purges that involved fewer documents. He said 2-TCCP-236, 2-TCW-917, 2-TCW-812, 2-TCW-976 could be called next week, depending on availability, since these had only one or two Written Records of Interviews. He noted that the defense teams had already had a few breaks and adjournments this year already.

Judge Fenz asked whether he was aware of the request by the defense to let the Co-Prosecutors and Civil Parties commence with the questioning. She asked for his reaction and whether the Co-Prosecution was prepared for this. Mr. Lysak answered that they were not favorable to this, since it was not the most efficient way to deal with the witnesses. Since one witness would be questioned at length, the defense teams would have time to prepare others. They would need this week to prepare for witness 2-TCW-916, but could examine this witness next week. He did not have any objection to admitting underlying documents of the OCIJ list. As for issue of DC-Cam numbers being indicated as sources for the OCIJ list, he pointed to the Zylab search field that could be used specifically for DC-Cam numbers.

International Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer Marie Guiraud noted that the Civil Parties had a direct interest in an expeditious trial, but that this could not be held on the expense of the defense’s right to a fair trial. They would therefore rely on the Chamber’s wisdom for this issue. In response to the e-mail sent by the Chamber on April 29 2016, she said they did not object to the admission to the documents underlying the OCIJ list, but that, on the contrary, these should be included. It should be up to the Chamber to identify the documents and admit them. As for the proposals made by the Nuon Chea Defense Team, they were opposed to two suggestions made in the request.[17] Testimonies of witnesses and civil parties should not be split up. If witnesses on internal purges would be heard first, they would prepare the examination for these.

Khieu Samphan Defense Counsel Anta Guissé said that “I can say that we endorse the request the adjournment”. She supported the first point by the Nuon Chea Defense Team, and also was in favor of admitting the documents. She said that the Co-Prosecutors were working in rotation, which meant that the Co-Prosecutors worked different in terms of time management. Having certain witnesses before those scheduled would pose even further problems and not solve any. Moreover, having the Prosecution examine the witnesses first and calling them at a later stage again did not solve the issue, since she had to be in court anyway and could not use this time for preparation. They did not have the human resources in terms of time. They would need more time to prepare. Judge Fenz asked to quantify the number of days they needed. Ms. Guissé said that she supported the Nuon Chea Defense Team and that four weeks should be enough.

Mr. Koppe said that he wanted to start by “fully endorsing the words by the Khieu Samphan counsel”. Additionally, the request for four weeks had to be put into perspective. The right of an expeditious trial was primarily and foremost the right of the accused and not “something you should balance with the civil parties”. Nuon Chea had been arrested eight weeks and three months ago. Adding another four weeks was “completely reasonable” and “not at all out of perspective” in comparison to the time they had dealt with this case already.

As for the OCIJ list, he said that the investigators had thought “apparently” that it was necessary to draw up a new list. Moreover, there was a discrepancy of 2.5 thousand people that had not been mentioned in the list by the Prosecution. They did not know what documents the OCIJ had used and what the procedures were. More than 13,000 documents had been released by the OCIJ and relied on more than 871 for drawing up the list. He said that the OCIJ list seemed to be more reliable than the list drawn up by the OCP. It was not possible to pretend that this OCIJ list was not there or briefly scan over it. There were “interpretation issues”, but the list was fundamental new evidence. Most judges had been involved in Case 001 and prepared most of the witnesses. The parties were “all involved in those proceedings” aside from the Civil Party lawyers. A lot of the defense lawyers were not at the court these years ago. The evidence was new to the defense team, but not new to the Chamber. He argued that this made it different to any other segment. These four weeks that were requested were “very reasonable”.

Judge Lavergne asked whether they had any objection to the underlying documents for the new S-21 list. Mr. Koppe said that they supported having these documents admitted, at least these 871 documents and possibly also the remaining documents.

Mr. Lysak responded to the rotation issue and said that the Prosecution had to deal with other cases as well. He did not dispute that this trial was difficult, but that four weeks were excessive. The Prosecution did not have any advantage over the defense teams.

Judge Fenz sought clarification, since there seemed to be a disparity between the defense teams: while the Nuon Chea Defense Team had requested to leave the examination of all three witnesses to the Prosecution at first, the Khieu Samphan Defense Team had said that this was not helpful. Mr. Koppe said that this was just a “distant alternative”, since it was used in other tribunals, but was not favorable.

Ms. Guissé said that she did not understand the Prosecutor’s remark, since she also did not have the assistance of other people of Case 003 and 004. For example, she would sometimes receive e-mails on documents by other prosecutors while she was in the court room. Thus, the equality of arms in terms of preparation was not given.

The President thanked the parties for their submissions and adjourned the hearing for a break.

---

 

New Witness: Mak Thim

After the break, the President announced that witness 2-TCW-906 would be heard after 2-TCW-808. The ruling regarding the request by the Defense Team would be issued tomorrow. Witness Mak Thim alias Mak Sithim was born on April 4 1962 in Kampong Chhnang Province.

 

National Deputy Co-Prosecutor Song Chorvoin asked about his work before working at S-21. He replied that he was in a group and sent to Ta Khmao to learn how to grow vegetables and use weapons. Afterwards, he was sent to Prey Sar to grow radish. He did not know who his superiors were, since he was around 16 years old at the time. He was sent elsewhere before being transferred to S-21. After the conclusion of the training sessions, they were transferred into different targets. He was assigned to join a medical training session for two or three months at Sorya near Psar Thmey. He was required to deliver medicine at S-21. There was a board that the trainer used to write down the names of the medicine. They were taught how to give injections.[18] He learned how to make medicine tablets at S-21. He did not know which unit he was in at S-21. He made the pill with vinegar and the flour of sweet potato. He also used the palm fruits to produce medicine. They would be grinded and then put into the form of a pill. His group was pretty young.

 

Working as a medic at S-21

He stayed at S-21 for about a year. When he provided treatment to the prisoners, it seemed that he could be perceived as a prisoner. He could not remember the year this happened. He was assigned to work as a medic at S-21. At night time, he slept in a house and at night time he was at standby duty. He used bandages that he wrapped around wounds for two hours before lunch time. He would resume work at around 1 pm or 2pm. They were assigned to work at a different floor in each buildings. Pills would be distributed to prisoners in a large prisoners or in a cell. There were different detention buildings there. Prisoners would be treated in their room or cell and not be treated outside.

Ms. Chorvoin said he had referred to a medical house.[19] He replied that it was opposite the main entrance at S-21 and a wooden house, but a concrete house on the ground floor. It was located in the compound of the prison inside the barbed wired fence. They mainly slept in the house, but did not have any sleeping mat. They had to search for a mosquito net and mats in the vicinity. The chief of the center would not allow prisoners to be taken outside of the center to be treated, “despite the seriousness of their condition”. If the condition did not improve, another medic chief would treat the particular prisoner. They were never unshackled and sent elsewhere. If conditions became more severe, he reported this to the chief medic. The prisoner was taken to be treated inside the parameter of the compound along the walk path outside their detention room. If prisoners could not be treated after interrogation, he had to report this to the chief medic. Ms. Chorvoin asked whether he provided treatment to prisoners whose interrogation had not yet been concluded.[20] He replied that the interrogators would warn them to be careful with the treatment of the wounds, since their confessions had not yet been finished. He did not ask many questions. “If I was to be careful and vigilant in relation to a particular prisoner, for instance of room A or B”, he would be so. He said that he never used violence towards a prisoner. His chief would instruct him how to treat a particular prisoner, for instance if their nail had been removed. “And of course, some of them actually recovered”. He only recalled two chiefs: Huor and Hor. He would be told by Hor which room he had to go to. He did not recall their names, since the medic staff was separate from the interrogators. Prisoners were carried by interrogators for treatment. He was never assigned to provide treatment to anyone outside the compound. Ms. Chorvoin referred to his statement, in which he had said that he provided treatment to the commanders and wives of commanders.[21] He replied that the treatment of the commanders took place at the front of the building. This did not happen regularly. Other medics provided better treatment. One time, when the medic did not succeed in inserting the needle into the commander’s vein, “I would hold hands of that individual battalion commander.

He could not recall the person Prak Khan. If the prisoner was an important prisoner, he would be warned to take extra care of him. While he was working at S-21, he met Duch on one or two occasions. “He rarely came to the prison buildings or the medical house and usually stayed in the vicinity of the kitchen hall.” Ms. Chorvoin asked whether he recalled his statement that Duch was S-21 chief. Mr. Thim replied that Duch was working at S-21. Ms. Chorvoin said that Duch had stated that medics in S-21 had a duty to treat prisoners until their full recovery.[22] Ms. Chorvoin asked whether this reflected his recollection. The witness answered that he did not know whether the prisoners were sent away after they were interrogated. There were two types of medical houses: one in the north and one in the south. He had to resort to his own medication when he fell sick. He had not heard of any hospital.

 

Treating prisoners

As for illnesses of the prisoners, he recounted that the prisoners had only gruel with morning glory as food. Although medics provided treatment on a daily basis, the prisoners would not be healthy, since they did not have sufficient food to eat. Moreover, they did not have proper latrines to relieve themselves. The prisoners were emaciated. He had only salt water to apply it on the wounds. He had the “red liquid” to apply it on the wound, but they ran out of it. Thus, he would put the powder of the pills on it and then put a bandage around. They had the medical methods to clean the rooms. He denied having poured salt water on the wounds: “I had a heart of human beings”. He instead used proper treatment.

The interrogators told him that they used the pliers to pull out the nails of toes. He had to clean the wounds with salt water and “red liquid” and wrap it with bandages. He mixed the pills with the red liquid to clean the wound. They used pieces of mosquito nets to wrap the wounds and used steaming pots to sterilize the nets or cloths.

When he first said that he did not treat prisoners who had been electrocuted, Ms. Chorvoin read out an excerpt of his statement, in which he said that he had treated prisoners with vitamins.[23] Mr. Thim said that prisoners had been electrocuted and may have fainted in the interrogation room. They were walked to the room where he treated them. He used B-12 and B-1. He had asked his chief medic. After not having been successful in the treatment, his chief told him to use specific types of medicine.

He rarely treated prisoners with serious illnesses. Those prisoners would usually be treated by the chief medics. After his report to his supervisor that one specific prisoner was seriously ill, his supervisor would treat the prisoner. He treated hundreds of prisoners, so he did not do a medical follow-up on the prisoners. He considered himself a prisoner as well at the time. “So we were in the same situation”. He elaborated “We did not think of any other matter besides that we would end up in the center, so we encouraged one another to have the strength. And sometimes prisoners disappeared and I did not know where they were sent to. Trucks were coming into the center, but I did not know what happened”. Asked about the psychological conditions of prisoners, “each of them had a sad face.” He further said that “they had no hope”. When he delivered medicine, “they had a sad face, and they did not look very happy. And I told them that I was simply a medic, and I told them that I would end up in the center”. After hearing this, they appeared to be happy, he said. He told the Court that nothing could compare to the pulling out of nails.

The President adjourned the hearing. It will continue tomorrow, May 3, 2016, at 9 am with the testimony of Mak Thim and 2-TCW-906.

 

[1] Testimony Prak Khan, 28 April 2016, at 14:12 28.

[2] Ibid., at 14:12

[3] E3/8368, at 00007445 (KH), 00225379 (EN), 00278744 (FR).

[4] E3/7464, Transcript of 22 July 2009, at 14:00 until 14:18.

[5] At 00007459 (KH), 00225388 (EN), 00278752 (FR).

[6] E3/1549.

[7] E3/3680, E3/1549, E3/4280. 00261079 (KH).

[8] E3/9431, at 00181540 (FR), 00198029 (EN), 00181396 (KH).

[9] E3/8386, 00532773 (FR), 00521631 (EN), 00002637 (KH).

[10] Testimony of Prak Khan, April 27 2016, at 13:26.

[11] E3/833, at 00282536 (FR), 00077729 (KH).

[12] E3/7315, at 01137156-62 (KH), S00013209-11 (EN).

[13] E3/7315.

[14] E3/79, at 00164587 (FR), 00146494 (KH), 00161554 (EN).

[15] 1E3/5800, 16 June 2009, at 15:15.

[16] E402.

[17] E402, paragraph 32 b and c.

[18] E3/7673.

[19] Ibid., at 00163711 (KH), 00401871 (EN), 00305212 (FR).

[20] E3/7673, at 00163711 (KH), 00401871 (EN), 00305212 (FR).

[21] Ibid.

[22] Testimony of Duch, 27 April 2009, 10:28.

[23] E3/7636, at 00163716 (KH), 00401872 (EN), 00305214 (FR).