Former Regiment Commander Denies Knowledge of Regiment and Division

Former regiment leader Sao Maing provided his testimony to the Chamber. He was questioned on issue of the armed conflict with Vietnam, the authority structure in Mondulkiri, arrests of cadres, but mostly could not remember or said he did not know, since it did not lie in his realm of responsibility.

 

Stationed in Mondulkiri

Witness Sao Cham Phi, alias Sao Maing (also spelled Sov Maing), was born in 1951 in Koh Nhek District of Mondulkiri Province.  He now lives in Keo Seima District in Mondulkiri Province.

Senior Assistant Prosecutor Dale Lysak asked what year he joined the Khmer Rouge revolution. He was a Khmer Rouge soldier between 1975 and 1979. Mr. Lysak said that he had told the investigators that he became a soldier in 1974 in Koh Nhek District. He replied that he was a soldier in Mondulkiri in 1975. There were two companies in Mondulkiri, he said. He then said there were two regiments that were subdivided into battalions. There were three battalions under each regiment. The name of the commanders of the second regiment were Leng, Veang, and the witness himself. The commander of the first regiment was called Lan. The second regiment’s main task was to work along the border. The company under Veang was at Bousraa, while he was stationed at Sen Monorom.

Mr. Lysak asked who the chief of Sector 105 military was to which Leng and Lan reported. He replied that it was Lang, who had passed away by now. Mr. Lysak said that he did not mean the general chief, but the chief of the military. He asked whether he knew Ta Sophea. He replied that Ta Sophea was under Ta Lang. He was the husband of one of his older sisters. Mr. Lysak asked whether it was correct that one of his brothers was Sao Saroeun. He replied that the name Sao Saroeun did not seem familiar.

Mr. Lysak said that he had identified a third brother, who was called Saroeun. He said that he had an older brother who was called Sao Saroeun. He did not know what position Saroeun held at the time.

Mr. Lysak said that former regiment commander Lan had testified that Ta Lork became the member and Ta Saroeun became the sector secretary after the death of Ta Lang.[1] He confirmed that he had a brother called Ban Siek. “He drove the vehicle.”

 

Marriage

He said that Angkar arranged his own marriage. He knew his wife before. “We had some relationship. We loved each other.” There were 100 soldiers in each battalion. He confirmed that there was a total of 300 soldiers in each regiment, as each regiment consisted of three battalions. Mr. Lysak asked whether his headquarters were based at the Phnom Kraol Dam, which the witness confirmed.[2] Ta Lang was located nearby to the south at K-11. They were based at Au Reang at Dak Dam. They were based there from 1976 until 1979. There were also soldiers from Division 920. The forces of Division 920 were not familiar with the geography, but his unit was. He confirmed that they were not from Mondulkiri. Mr. Lysak read a report from Ta Chhin to Son Sen about the border situation. Mr. Lysak asked whether he remembered whether there were soldiers who were former South Vietnam soldiers, which he denied. [3] Nor was he aware of FULRO.

Mr. Lysak inquired whether he was aware that there was a border conflict between Vietnam and Cambodia while he was at Dak Dam, which the witness denied. Mr. Lysak read a contemporaneous report that mentioned Group Seven. He wanted to know who this referred to.[4] He replied that he did not know. Mr. Lysak read minutes of a Standing Committee Meeting regarding negotiations with Vietnam on the eastern border.[5] The witness said he did not know about this. Nor did he know about negotiations that Ta Sophea could have conducted with Vietnam.

 

Border Clashes

Border clashes took place in around 1976. The fighting broke out when they “encountered each other.” He could not recall the exact day. The fighting was not frequent in 1976, but came more intensified in 1977 and in 1978. Sometimes fighting would happen once a month, sometimes once every two months. This became more frequent in 1978. After they fought, they realized that they could not defeat them and moved into the rear area. There were wounded soldiers. He did not know what happened to these wounded soldiers. Mr. Lysak asked him to give an estimate how many soldiers got killed in the fighting in 1976.[6] He said that two soldiers were wounded and one died. Later on, they fled. He confirmed that they laid spike traps. They were planted closer to the border. Mr. Lysak inquired whether he had ever heard about the Vietnamese being able to remove mines that had been planted at the border.[7] The witness answered that he had never heard of it.

At this point, Nuon Chea Defense Counsel observed that he failed to see the relevance of the questions. Mr. Lysak said that it was part of the conflict and that it showed that it showed directions by the regime. He did not know what would happen to Vietnamese soldiers once captured. Mr. Lysak inquired whether he remembered which companies were deployed at some spearheads. He replied that “it seems there was none.”

 

Defending the Country

Mr. Lysak referred to a telegram sent by the witness’s brother that mentioned Vietnamese people caught in combat.^[8] Neither had the witness had of this, nor did he know whether his brother had received orders on how to treat prisoners. The witness did not know anything about the aggressiveness of Division 920 soldiers. “There was no fighting inside Vietnamese territory”, he said. “Only when they came inside our territory then we fought”. He did not know Saom Village.[9] At this point, Khieu Samphan Defense Counsel Anta Guissé objected and said that this was outside the scope of the trial. Moreover, the witness had indicated that he did not know anything about the topic.

Mr. Lysak said that his questions were to refresh memory

The witness did not know this village.

 

Phnom Kraol

He confirmed that there was a prison at Phnom Kraol. Leng was responsible for this.[10]Mr. Lysak asked how he knew that Ta Leng’s soldiers arrested people. Sophea was also in charge of this. “For me, I did not know, because it was not my business.”

Mr. Lysak then asked how Ta Leng disappeared and where he was sent to.[11] He replied that he “did not know about those people’s affairs.” Ta Veang had told him about the arrest. Mr. Lysak said that there were S-21 records that showed that Ta Leng, secretary of Regiment 2, also called 502, entered S-21 on 13 February 1978 (entry number 2276). He replied that he had not heard about this. Mr. Lysak said that his brother Saroeun had mentioned the arrest in his OCIJ statement.[12] The witness did not know whether Division 920 was involved in these arrests. He did not know who took over Leng’s position after his arrest. Only those who were responsible for certain tasks were aware of these tasks, he said.

This prompted Mr. Lysak to read out Mr. Maing’s brother’s statement, in which the latter had said that Mr. Maing took over the position.[13] Mr. Lysak asked why his own brother would identify him as the leader who took over Leng’s position if that was not him. “I did not know. I did not receive that position,” he said. Mr. Lysak asked how his tasks changed after Leng changed positions. Veang was also in the committee of the company, the witness said. He said he reported to him.

He was in charge of a company at Phnom Kraol Dam together with Leng, but he did not know of his function later. He saw Phnom Kraol while he was walking in the distance. There was a long house and a fence surrounding it. The roof was thatched-roof, but he did not know about the wall, since he could only see the fence. He saw the prisoners when they were let out. They were sent to plant cotton and clear grass. He did not know how many people he saw. He did not know how many people were detained there either. Nor did he know whether they were shackled inside the prison.[14] Mr. Lysak asked how he knew that prisoners were shackled as indicated in his Written Record of Interview.[15] Ms. Guissé interjected and said that the sentence in French read that “perhaps they were handcuffed.” Mr. Lysak rephrased the question and asked how he knew that they were handcuffed or shackled. Ms. Guissé interjected again. There was a small discussion, at the end of which Mr. Lysak asked why he had said that the prisoners were maybe shackled or handcuffed. The witness replied that he had made this statement to the OCIJ. With this, Mr. Lysak concluded his line of questioning and handed the floor to the Civil Party lawyers.

 

Civil Party Lawyer Lor Chunthy asked about his statement that they were shackled or handcuffed. The witness replied: “No, I did not.” He did not know whether the prisoners were civilians or soldiers. During the course of preparations, they were told that they had to fight the Vietnamese. Ta Leng as the chief and gave these instructions. They were told to station themselves at a specific area. They would only fight when the Vietnamese entered the territory. They received these instructions from 1976 onwards. Sometimes, Cambodian soldiers were wounded. He did not know about the Vietnamese side.

 

Disappearance of the Sector Chief

Mr. Chunthy asked whether the sector chief went onto an assignment when he disappeared. Mr. Maing replied that he did not know anything about an assignment. There were instructions to defend the country. The security center was located next to Phnom Kraol Dam and next to the mountain. At that time, he was not nearby the Security Center.

Mr. Chunthy then asked what his responsibilities were when Leng disappeared. He said that he was not promoted. The Vietnamese attacked at some point and entered the country.

 

Questions by the Khieu Samphan Defense Team

After the break, the floor was handed to the Khieu Samphan Defense Team. Anta Guissé asked whether he stayed in Mondulkiri between 1970 and 1975, which the witness confirmed. There were Khmer Rouge present already before 1975. There were many, but less than in 1975.

He said he knew a person called Lang before 1975.[16] There were many Vietnamese, he said. “And the numbers were larger [than the Cambodian one].” Ms. Guissé asked about his statement.[17] He said that they had to retreat, because they were defeated. “And then they kept on pushing in.”

Ms. Guissé referred to an excerpt of Sao Saroeun’s testimony in front of the court, in which he had differed a bit from his previous statement.[18] Mr. Saroeun had said that his brother, Mr. Mainh, was in charge of protecting the border. They had different missions, and he therefore did not know the exact tasks of his brother. Mr. Maing confirmed that he was stationed at Au Reang District. Ms. Guissé wanted to know how far the district in which his brother was located, Pech Chreada, from the one he was stationed in. He replied that it was perhaps 50 kilometers. He met his brother two or three times between 1975 and 1979. They met each other as brothers and not in work meetings.

Ms. Guissé then wanted to know whether he ever heard about K-16 and K-17 offices. He never heard about them, he said. He only knew about Phay and no other cadre who worked at Phnom Kraol Security Center. Ms. Guissé said that another witness had said that the supervisors were Phay, Lieng and Leng.[19] He replied that he knew Ta Lieng and Phay. He said that they were not of Lao ethnicity, as alleged by the other witness. With this, Ms. Guissé concluded her examination of the witness. Since the Nuon Chea Defense Team did not have any questions, the witness was dismissed.

 

Oral Submissions

The presiding judge Nil Nonn announced that oral submissions regarding two issues would be heard. First, regarding the scheduling of witness 2-TCW-1046 that the Khieu Samphan Defense Team had requested to appear longer. Second, regarding the admissions of two transcripts of DC-Cam interviews that underlie an article in the Searching for Truth Magazine that was discussed yesterday.

Ms. Guissé said that they noted that the day they had scheduled for witness 2-TCW-1046 was too short. She said they could extract much information from this witness given his rank. The chamber had called 2-TCW-1065 and planned two days for this witness, despite the fact that he was lower in rank. The witness would therefore be helpful to the chamber.

Mr. Lysak said that he was “not sure that two days are necessary”, since he had already testified for one day in Case 002/01 trial. An alternative would be to hear both of them for 1.5 days each. The Lead Co-Lawyers for Civil Parties relied on the Chamber’s wisdom. The Nuon Chea Defense Team supported the request by the Khieu Samphan Defense Team.

Moving on to the next issue, the president referred to two transcript of interviews conducted by DC-Cam. Since the transcripts were not available during yesterday’s discussion, the chamber wanted to hear submissions. Mr. Lysak had no objection to admitting these transcripts, despite the fact that they were only available in Khmer and 140 pages long each. National Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer Pich Ang also had no objection. Mr. Koppe said that the Prosecution’s office was already in the possession of both offices since 2015. The Khieu Samphan Defense Counsel did not have any observations.

To decide on the matter, the bench decided to call for a break before issuing the decision. After the break, president Nonn issued their ruling. As for the request by the Nuon Chea Defense Team to call two further witnesses, as discussed yesterday, they said that they would issue a ruling after the hearing of 2-TCW-1065.[20] As for the request to extent the testimony of 2-TCW-1046, he announced that 2-TCW-1046 would be heard one and a half days. The president then adjourned the hearing. The Chamber will hear testimony of witness 2-TCW-1046 on Monday, October 31.

 

 

 

[1] E3/1650, at 00236734 (KH), 00244338 (EN), 00274832 (FR).

[2] E3/1650, at 00236731 (KH), 00244336 (EN), 00274829 (FR).

[3] E3/1022, 9 March 1977 report.

[4] E3/8377.

[5] E3/218, at 00000752 (KH), 00182652 (EN), 00334968 (FR).

[6] E3/506, at 00239944 (KH), 00244491 (EN), 00289940 (FR).

[7] E3/9290, at 00021506 (KH), 00233965-66 (EN), 01248464 (FR).

[8] E3/248.

[9] E3/218.

[10] E3/506, 00239943 (KH), 00244490 (EN), 00289939 (FR).

[11] E3/506, at 00239944 (KH), 00244491 (EN), 00289940 (FR).

[12] E3/367, at 00241440 (KH), 00278697 (EN), 00486013 (FR).

[13] E3/367, at 00251440 (KH), 00278696 (EN), 00486012 (FR).

[14] E3/7703, at 00236746 (KH), 00242171 (EN), 00426116 (FR).

[15] E3/506, at 00239943 (KH), 00244490 (EN), 00289939 (FR).

[16] E3/7822, 00665232 (FR), 00229204 (KH), 00667338 (EN).

[17] E3/506, at 0028791 (FR), 00239944 (KH), 00244491 (EN).

[18] E3/367.; 30 March 2016, before 11:36.

[19] E3/7703, at 00426116 (FR), 00242171 (EN), 00236746 (KH).

[20] E448.

Featured Image: Witness Sao Maing (ECCC: Flickr).