Back to Internal Purges: Witness

Civil Party Pen Sochan concluded her testimony today by answering questions by the defense teams regarding her wedding and rape and her appearance in the documentary Red Wedding. Next, witness Chean Choeun took his stance and told the court about the military he had received while working in the railway unit, and gave more information on the military structure in the Northwest Zone.

 

Questions by the Bench

She was sent to a mobile unit from the children’s unit and stayed there for three months. She was in the mobile unit when she got married. She was sent to a mobile unit when they considered her mature enough. Children in the children’s unit were around 14 or 15 years old. The unit chief held a meeting and said that those who were tall enough would be sent to the mobile unit. “They never paid attention to our age”, she said. “They did not ask us anything in advance.”

 

 

Questions by the Nuon Chea Defense Team about Documentary: Red Wedding

In the film, she was seen to be filling in the Civil Party Application, while she had said that she had been interviewed by Civil Party lawyers first interviewed her and that the film makers came afterwards. They looked for people who got married under the Khmer Rouge regime and who were mistreated and therefore made her Civil Party Application through her lawyer. She was interviewed before the film was made. She said that she had already filled her form before the film was taken. The film was shot when she lodged one of the forms. She did not receive any money or benefit from the film. Her objective was simply to participate as a Civil Party. She was told that she had to lodge a Civil Party application and participate in the documentary so that the younger generation could learn.

 

Second Husband

In the documentary she said that she was happy with her second husband. She said, however, that she was “a victim” under her second marriage as well. “I swore to myself that I would never get married again”. Mr. Koppe read an excerpt of the book The Past and the Present of Forced Marriage Survivors, in which the second marriage was described as being violent.[1] She confirmed that this account was correct. She had also said this to the film maker. She did not review the entire film. Mr. Koppe pointed out that it did not appear in the film.

She did not know what her sister-in-law did in 1979. She was a chief of a mobile unit. “In my mind, I was not really satisfied with what she had told me”, so she met her again when the film was shot. She wanted to ask her to be able to determine whether her husband loved her or whether it was her sister-in-law’s proposal. She considered her sister-in-law’s answer but, seeing that she did not get satisfying answers, she considered the regime a dictatorial one.

Om was the mobile unit chief. She decided to go and ask Om while the film was shot, since she had been the unit chief.

 

She talked about her rape in the film. A discussion followed about the relevant video clips that Judge Claudia Fenz said should be shown in court to avoid issues of translation.

 

The Red Wedding

After the break, the President announced that 15 additional minutes were granted to the defense teams. Video clips of the Red Wedding were then presented. The Civil Party started crying. Mr. Koppe asked who gave her the picture that could be seen in the video. She said that this photograph was shown to her. Her hands were tied and her husband raped her, she recounted. The militiamen did not hold her legs. They told her that she had to obey Angkar. “If I had protested, I would have been killed”. She had asked the people to draw the picture. “I wanted to show to the foreign guests and also the courts what I experienced.”

Mr. Koppe asked whether Om had said that it took place at Veal Tbeng, which she confirmed. This was where she was assigned to carry dirt. A dam was built by a Special Force. There was a discussion about the place. The Civil Party herself had never talked about Veal Tbeng, she said. She felt humiliated, because of the answers she received. “I wanted to find the truth, and then the answers were given to me, and I felt humiliated”.

Mr. Koppe said that the next video clip seemed to indicate that her husband asked the militiamen to spy on them. National Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer Pich Ang said that this was not sad in Khmer. The video clip was replayed. The English subtitles did not seem to be accurate and Mr. Koppe withdrew the question. He wanted to know what she meant that he “managed to hurt me” during the first night. She replied that she could not remember everything that she said in the film. He asked her whether she and her husband had sexual intercourse during the first night, which she denied.

Asked about the woman Chean, she recounted how they became friends during Democratic Kampuchea: “She stole a piece of potato for me, so she sacrificed herself for me and I loved her for it.” Mr. Koppe asked whether there was anyone alive today who could confirm her story. She said that there was no one. “We did not dare to befriend anyone during the regime.” With this, Mr. Koppe gave the floor to the Khieu Samphan Defense Team. Kong Sam Onn asked about her age.[2] She replied that she had not mentioned the age of 14, but that she had mentioned the number of couples being either 12 or 14. She could not read or write and did not review the document afterwards. She said she was 15 or 16 years old when she got married.

Her husband slept in a different place. After being married, she saw him for three days when she did not work at Dam Rokha. Romdeng was known under several names. She went there to look for a friend.[3]

Her uncle Kom was at Dam Rokha, but he did not live at Romdeng. Asked about Rompek, she said she could not remember. She had an aunt called An. She said she never mentioned the village called Rompek.

 

Potential Discrepancies

On this note, Mr. Sam Onn concluded his line of questioning and handed the floor to his colleague Anta Guissé. She asked about the documents of her complaint.[4] She had a lawyer, but her younger son helped her filling in the form. She did not verify the document and relied on her lawyer for this. She reiterated that her hands were tied on the third night. [5] There was heavy rain and it was almost time to work. Ms. Guissé said that there was a whistle at 2 am for work, since she had said today that she did not work for the first three days. She said that she had to work the next day when she heard the whistle.

Ms. Guissé inquired about her re-fashioning that she had mentioned yesterday, but that was not found in two documents.[6] She answered that she did not know how it was recorded, but that she had mentioned the re-fashioning.[7] She had six children: five daughters and one son. She got married around five or six months before the Vietnamese came into the country, but she did not have any calendar at the time. The militiamen were not in the same room but were standing in front of the entrance of her hut. “They shouted at us that we had to make children for Angkar”. The walls were not completely closed.

Ms. Guissé asked about her statement, in which she indicated that her husband “grabbed my hands and managed to rape me” while the militiamen were under the house.[8] The Civil Party said that they were in front of the hut and that the document may have been faulty. International Assistant Prosecutor Andrew Boyle indicated that the English version indicated “from the ground floor” and not “under the hut”. Ms. Guissé said it said “under the house” in the Khmer original.

 

Civil Party Impact Statement

During the regime, she experienced a lot of suffering as a Cambodian child. “I was born as a woman, but I did not have a formal wedding, I was forced in fact. I was raped and I was suffering bodily and I had blood coming out of my body. I was hit by the back of the hoe and I still have the scar on my head nowadays. I had a swollen ankle. I could not even walk to work and I was whipped by a man on a horse and I collapsed on the ground. I am a victim and I want to file the complaint against the accused. I want the younger generation to know what was going on. At the time, I was suffering. I lost my brother, my mother, and also other siblings. […] I have had psychotic medicine every day. I have used them. And my head was broken on the back in the past. During that authoritarian regime, I had suffered a lot, and at the present time, after the regime, I met a bad husband and I continued to suffer a lot. […]. I loved my father. He never beat me. I do not know where he was killed. Regarding my cousins, they were all educated. They were taken away and killed. How this authoritarian country did such a bad thing to its own people? […] I lost my relatives, I lost my property and my house. My mother had a swollen disease in the Khmer Rouge time and later on after we lived in a peaceful country, she passed away. At the moment I am a widow with sick children. I have been in a foreign country to make a living for two years. I have never had a happy life. I was invited and summoned by my lawyer to come here.

 

She then put questions to the accused:

“I would like to ask the accused the question: why people whom we did not know each other were matched up to marry each other? What was it for? And second question is at follow: why people were put under forced labor and why other people were killed, even the educated? […]

Why did they such things? “

I would like to ask for reparations to have the pagodas and school builds so that the younger generation not to be in the same situation like me. […]. I do not want the authoritarian regime to come back in this country.

 

The Trial Chamber President informed her that the accused exercised their right to remain silent. The president then thanked the Civil Party and dismissed her. Next, 2-TCW-960 appeared on the stand. At this point, the President adjourned the hearing for a break.

 

 

New Witness: Cheal Choeun

After the break, the Bench ruled on several issues, including the request to admit more documents and the request of the Civil Party Lawyers to have on additional day for the impact hearings, since 2-TCCP-264 would not be heard anymore.[9] There was also a discussion about a request by the Nuon Chea Defense Team to admit documents related to expert testimony 2-TCE-98 who will appear next week and the rebuttal evidence that the Co-Prosecution had requested to be admitted.

Witness Cheal Choeun was born on 27 August 1952 in Pursat Province. He was a soldier and fled to Au Sra Lao due to difficult living conditions. He was part of Battalion 18. He did not know the number of the regiment or division. Unit 35 was under the supervision of the Zone. He did not remember the company number, but remembered that Roeun was in charge of the company. Judge Lavergne said that he had mentioned a person called Voeut being the company commander in his interview.[10] He replied that his name was Roeun. He could not recall the other people’s names. The platoon leader was Doeun. Mr. Choeun was in unit 35 for about a month. He did not personally see Saroeun alias Ren, but heart people talk about him. He was uncertain about Saroeun’s position, but knew that there were people above him. During the regime, he heard people saying that he was taken away, but he did not know where he was taken to.

Mr. Koppe objected to the questions by Judge Lavergne “for reasons of the possible appeal in 002/02”. He said that the Supreme Court Chamber would issue its decision in Case 002/01, including Tuol Po Chrey. The questioning related to the command structure in the Northwest, which would be judged upon in a month. Judge Lavergne rebutted and said that he had neither asked about Tuol Po Chrey nor about evacuations, but only about the military organization in the Northwest. International Co-Prosecutor Nicholas Koumjian pointed out that Case 002/02 was not on the record of 002/01 and International Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer Marie Guiraud said she did not understand the objection, since the case for the Supreme Court Chamber was closed. The objection was overruled, since it was decided that it was not well-founded and had no basis in law.

Judge Lavergne then continued his questioning. He quoted an excerpt, but the witness said that it was beyond his knowledge.[11] He worked as a railway worker only after, he said. The leader of the zone was called Ruos Nhim, but he had never met him. He denied ever receiving orders from Ruos Nhim. However, was under the command of the Northwest Zone. He never had access to ammunition, he said.

Judge Lavergne quoted his statement.[12] Mr. Choeun then said that he was told to deliver the weapons to the warehouse, but he did not know where they were stored. They had to be delivered to Pheap’s house.

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

 

 

Instructions to Store Weapons

After the break, Judge Lavergne inquired about the person Pheap, who the witness had said was the chief of the chief of the railway unit. The person who worked at the railway station instructed the people regardless of whether they were New People or Old People. They engaged in military training exercises and did not let other people know about their training. Other units did not have to engage in such training. “We were not told of any specific reason to engage in such exercise. However, we were told to keep it secret.”  He denied ever having manufactured any bomb. He denied having engaged in such task and insisted that he worked on the railway and the bridge. There was a person who was called Sambath who was with a foreigner when he was interviewed. Judge Lavergne asked whether the name Rob Lemkin rang a bell, which he confirmed. He could not remember when he met them. They went to Thailand together. Two people were interviewed. Judge Lavergne showed an excerpt of the documentary in which the witness was seen. He spoke to a group of Khmer people who lived overseas. After they were interviewed, they told him that they executed prisoners.

When Judge Lavergne quoted an excerpt of Behind the Killing Field, Mr. Koppe reminded the chamber of a memo of last month[13], but was interrupted by the judge, who said that the witness should respond first.[14] He asked whether he had ever heard of a person called Chao Choeun, which the witness denied. He did not answer whether it corresponded to statements he had made. When Judge Lavergne pressed on, he denied it. “I was never detained in any camp”, he said. Mr. Koppe interjected and said that Thet Sambath seemed to have “mixed people up”.

After a brief discussion in which the Bench seemed to indicate that this was not a basis for interrupting the questioning, Mr. Koppe said: “This is your memo incorporating the e-mail of Rob Lemkin”. They heard the gunfire “behind the lines” of soldiers. Ren told “us soldiers” to fire back. Judge Lavergne asked whether they were Khmer Rouge soldiers, but Anta Guissé first asked when this event took place. This took place in 1975 and the soldiers accompanied were Lon Nol soldiers. This was “immediately after we had peace, people were evacuated.” The soldiers were transported from Battambang. They were only told that they had to accompany those soldiers to welcome Samdech. Saroeun alias Ren, together with his co-workers, fired at those soldiers. “I was terrified at the time.” Only Khmer Rouge soldiers had weapons, but not the Lon No soldiers. There were more than 50 soldiers. These soldiers were transported on trucks. They were walking from National Road 5 to another location. This happened only once. A few days later he was removed and sent to be a railway worker.

Pheap told him to get the weapons and store them at the warehouse. Pheap’s wife told him that he disappeared. Three individuals disappeared, but he did not know where they went to. Ta Mom was the last one who disappeared after Ta Mok appeared. He never met him and did not know where he was located. After the disappearance, “it was said that all of them were traitors”.

 

The President adjourned the hearing. It will continue tomorrow at 9 am with the testimony of Cheal Choeung, followed by 2-TCW-1037.

 

[1] E3/9197, at 00992331 (EN).

[2] At 00891280 (EN), 00873734, 00579598 (KH). E3/6034b, 00409457 (KH).

[3] E3/4779, 00499825 (KH), 00900952 (FR), 00891280 (EN).

[4] E3/4779; E3/60341; E3/6034b.

[5] E3/4779, at 00891280 (EN), 00499825 (KH).

[6] E3/4779.

[7] E3/0513.2.5.

[8] At 00891280 (EN), 00499825 (KH).

[9] E315/1/7.

[10] E3/10681.

[11]​​

[12] E3/10681.

[13] E29/489/1.

[14] E3/4202, at 00757532 (EN), 00849437-38 (FR), 00858343 (KH).