Sao Phim’s Guard Testifies

Today, anonymous Civil Party 2-TCW-1063 continued his testimony. He was probed on inconsistencies between his Civil Party Application and supplementary statements as well as on Khieu Samphan’s speech. Next, witness Sim Oeng was questioned by the Nuon Chea Defense Team on Sao Phim, his family members, and Sao Phim’s relation to other high-ranking cadres. Nuon Chea Defense Counsel Victor Koppe also put questions to him regarding an alleged coup d’état that was discussed between Sao Phim and Heng Samrin.

 

Influence of the Lon Nol

National Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer Pich Ang was absent due to personal reasons. All other parties were present.

The Nuon Chea Defense Team did not have any questions for the anonymous Civil Party. The floor was therefore handed to the Khieu Samphan Defense Team. She asked him to specify when he became a soldier. He confirmed that he stopped being a soldier when he was wounded. He started being a farmer. She inquired about a person called Kong Sray Ta and wanted to know whether she had understood it correctly that his task was to prevent Vietnamese soldiers from entering the country. He confirmed this. He was part of the militia group that cooperated with Lon Nol soldiers. The names were put on the list by the commune authority and not the Lon Nol soldiers. There were clashes between those who opposed and those who supported the revolution. The Khmer Rouge entered Svay Rieng on the 14^th of April 1975. He was evacuated from Svay Rieng Provincial Town on 17^th of April. Before that time, he lived under the authority of Lon Nol.

 

Civil Party Application Forms

Ms. Guissé asked who assisted her in filling in the Civil Party Application Form. She replied that she could not remember.[1] Someone assisted her, but she could not recall the details. The person was a staff member of an organization. Pointing to his Civil Party Application, she wanted to know why he had not said that it was Psar Chbar Ampov in his first application.[2] He replied that he had gotten to know this later. He clarified that this was the market after the liberation of Hun Sen’s soldiers. Ms. Guissé insisted on this point, but the Civil Party said that he arrived at Psar Chbar Ampov and that his statement that it was Central Market must have been wrong.

When Ms. Guissé inquired sought more details about the statements and why he had not mentioned specific facts, International Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer interjected and said that the answers were noted down by NGO staff members and that this did not necessarily mean that a Civil Party did not mention this. The Civil Party also reiterated that he did not write the document. He could not remember whether the application was read out to him.

He could not remember the position and role of the person who gave the speech at the time. He said that he thought that this person had a high role. He never met high-ranking officials, as he was an ordinary citizen. When he was evacuated to Phnom Penh he met Khieu Samphan. People in general rarely had the occasion to meet senior people. She probed on the issue why Khieu Samphan’s name was not mentioned in the relevant section. International Co-Prosecutor interjected and said that it was under the section of “Crimes” that occurred and that Khieu Samphan was therefore not necessarily asked about.

No questions were put to him about his meeting with Khieu Samphan in the first interview, he said. Thus, he only mentioned it later.

Turning to another issue, she asked whether it was correct that he returned to his birth village in May 1975 after being evacuated on 17 April 1975. He confirmed this. She then sought clarification regarding his detainment: at some point he had indicated four months and at another point he had said nine months. He said that it was nine months and that the person who took the notes perhaps did not hear it clearly.

Ms. Guissé asked whether he remembered having a lawyer represent him starting in October 2009.[3] He confirmed this. His lawyer assisted him in filling out the form. Khieu Samphan distributed scarves, medicine, and food before they departed to the railway station. She asked why he did not mention that he gave a speech in the document. He said that he was not asked about a speech, which was why he did not mention it. She wanted to know why Khieu Samphan’s name then came up in the second interview: did he spontaneously mention him, or was he specifically asked about him? He replied that he was asked clarification questions later. He was asked what kind of things Khieu Samphan said when distributing things. It did not come to his mind to talk about Chbar Ampov and Khieu Samphan. He said he did not pay “much attention” to the matter. He could only recall the event later. He could not recall every detail of Khieu Samphan’s speech, but some portions of it.[4] Khieu Samphan spoke for about an hour. Ms. Guissé said that he had said yesterday that Khieu Samphan spoke for about thirty minutes, because he was in a hurry. He knew that there were many people, but he did not know how many.

He only recognized Khieu Samphan, since he had seen a film in 1975 showing Khieu Samphan. He saw the film when Democratic Kampuchea controlled the country. Sometimes he could hear voices in the film and sometimes it was silent. Ms. Guissé concluded her line of questioning and the floor was handed to her colleague Kong Sam Onn.

Mr. Onn inquired about the number of rows. He said that he did not know. There were around twenty people in front of him, but he did not know the total number. He was standing to the right. He personally received goods from Khieu Samphan. His name was called out, after which he received the goods.

 

Civil Party Impact Statement

I wish to inform the chamber [about] the suffering inflicted on me … At the time, the Khmer Rouge troops entered Svay Rieng. They forced people to go out of Svay Rieng. They shouted at us that ‘please, go out of the town, otherwise you are all shot to death.’ After I had left my birthplace and reached a main road, I saw an old man who could … hardly walk. And they shouted at him: ‘Why do you walk like that? You will be shot to death.’ I was so scared at the time. I was so frightened, because some people were shot dead. All people, including me … were being evacuated. [We] had no belongings with us, but only some clothes and some rice since we were forced to leave.  We were told that we would leave only for two or three days, then we would be allowed to return home. […]

Then we arrived at Ta Chey village. […] One month later on, they learned that my elder brother used to be a former Lon Nol soldier. My elder soldier was then taken for education [… but] in fact he was not sent for education, he was sent for execution.

Half a month later, my father was taken away too. He was also taken for education at Wat Ta Chey. They said that my father was part of the militia group. My father in fact was an ordinary person, but he was given a riffle to protect villagers. Half a month later, they found out that I was once a former Lon Nol soldiers, but for only three months.

After I got injured while being a soldier, I was sent to the hospital and then I was released out of the hospital and came back home. And I later became part of the militia group. After they found out that I was a former soldier, I was also sent for education at Wat Ta Chey Pagoda. […] I was forced to work. […].

I underwent very bad experience. Later in 1976, [my family] was evacuated […]. My wife and I were not allowed to go with my siblings and parents. […] From the information that I learned from the survivor, after two months there, they found out that my brother-in-law, that is my elder sister’s husband, was a former soldier. So he was taken to Koh Dach to be executed. My brother-in-law disappeared ever since. Later on in 1977, I was evacuated for the second time. Seventy families were evacuated at the time, twenty amongst which were from Ta Chey. I was evacuated from Battambang. I left my house and I went on foot with my bare soles. […] I left my village and arrived Krao Koh. […].

I was in a very bad situation. I had very little rice with me and some clothes. When we arrived at Kampong Trabei, we were allowed to spend the night there. […] We spent 7 days and nights to arrive at Neak Loeung. We then left […] on foot. We were allowed to take a rest at some location in order to wait for the boats to transport us to Phnom Penh. On the sixth night […] we left on a ferry and arrived at Chbar Ampov at around 10 pm. […]. We were told to take rest for three days. It was at the time that I met with senior leaders Khieu Samphan and others, who came to distribute stuff to us and speeches were made at the time […].

 

He then elaborated on his journey, at the end of which he arrived at Prey Cheab Cooperative.

I was exhausted […]. We had two full spoons of rice to eat/ […] We cooked red rice and later on we were given a full spoon of rice, not two spoons of rice. I worked at a worksite […]. I was told that some of them died because of starvation, they had no rice to eat. I became even more frightened […] because other people had passed away because they were starved.  […]. I was trying my best to work until I fell ill.

 

He then recounted the fate of his family.

In fact we were evacuated on the same occasion, but we were separated. […] My parents could stay there for two or three months. Then my father had been called out for execution. My siblings, my younger sister and brother were also called for execution. […] It is my suffering that I have lost my parents and my siblings. I was so terrified. My elder brother, one of them, was also killed in Prey Veng. When I arrived at Prey Cheak, I fell ill and I was hospitalized.

The Civil Party then told the court about his experience at the end of the regime and that they fled the area when the Vietnamese arrived.

Trial Chamber President Nil Nonn interrupted the Civil Party and said that this was sufficient. When he thanked the Civil Party and dismissed him, International Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer Marie Guiraud interjected and said that the Civil Party had questions for the accused. He asked how Khieu Samphan could say that he was not aware of the killing of evacuation. The President then adjourned the hearing for a break at 11:05.

 

---

 

New Witness: Sin Oeng

After the break, witness 2-TCW-1069 was introduced to the chamber. Nuon Chea Defense Counsel Victor Koppe requested an extension of the scheduled testimony, because the witness seemed to have “quite [an] extensive breadth of knowledge” and requested to hear both 2-TCW-1069 and 2-TCW-1070 at least one day and a half, or perhaps two days. International Co-Prosecutor said that they did not have any objection, but that they did not see the need to hear him longer.

Witness Sin Oeng was born on eight March 1957. After informing the witness about his rights and obligations and confirming his identity, the president adjourned the hearing for a break.

After the lunch break, the Trial Chamber admitted a prior DC-Cam statement of 2-TCW-920. The witness’s testimony was scheduled for 1.5 days. The floor was handed to the Nuon Chea Defense Team.

Mr. Koppe asked where he was as of 17 April 1975 and what he did at the time. He was part of a mobile unit and remained working in that mobile unit after April 1975 until 1976. He was then taken to “a zone.” He was tasked with farming rice. At night time, he was told to be a guard. He was later a guard for Sao Phim and would accompany him wherever he went. “At night time I took shifts with others securing the security for Sao Phim.”

He confirmed that he had military training for several months, but not on a regular basis. He would sometimes miss the sessions. Mr. Koppe inquired whether it was correct that he was working at a defense office, which the witness confirmed.[5] All of them were assigned to various locations. Prak Choeun was the chief of the guards.

Mr. Koppe wanted to know whether it was correct that he was related to Sao Phim and if yes, how he was related. He replied that his deceased grandmother was Sao Phim’s cousin. Sao Phim knew that he was the child of someone related to him. The witness himself did not know at the time how exactly he was relate to Sao Phim.

Mr. Koppe presented three photographs to the witness.[6] Mr. Koppe asked whether he recognized anyone on this photograph. He replied that he recognized Sao Phim in this photograph. When he was assigned to work for Sao Phim, the latter was already older. It was the third person on the left. He did not recognize the second person on the left. Mr. Koppe asked whether he recognized Nuon Chea. The witness replied that he did not know him well. Mr. Koppe quoted his statement in which he had said that Nuon Chea slept at the witness’s office location three to four times.[7] The witness said that he did not know the leaders clearly and that he could not recognize them properly. “I may forget some information.”

Mr. Koppe moved to a second photograph. Mr. Koppe explained that Pol Pot was standing next to Nuon Chea, Sao Phim, Vorn Vet, and Khoy Tuon.[8] Judge Jean-Marc Lavergne said that it seemed to him that Mr. Koppe was testifying and should ask the witness himself. Mr. Koppe said that he was only interested in the “relatively little person on the left” who wore a krama on the photo. The witness replied that he did not recognize him. Mr. Koppe asked whether he knew someone called Phuong, chief of a rubber plantation in the East Zone. He answered that he did not encounter him at the time, because “no one told me about him.”

Mr. Koppe presented his third and last photograph to the witness.[9] Mr. Oeng did not recognize him but said that he may have met him. Mr. Koppe inquired whether it could be a person he testified to extensively in his interviews, namely Heng Samrin. “He is old now. He looks very young in this photo,” he said. “He was very young in the past when I met him. He looked quite older than this person in the picture.” He said he could not recognize him. He did not know who this person was in
the photograph, but that he did not contradict counsel.

Mr. Koppe said that he had testified that Heng Samrin was Division 4 Commander stationed at Memot. He replied that he could recall that he was in charge of a division in Memot.

 

Sao Phim

Mr. Koppe asked about Sao Phim’s wife Yeay Karo and what the witness knew. He replied that he knew Yeay Karo and could recognize her. He saw Yeay Karo at the agricultural office. “She was always there.” Thus, he concluded that she was in charge of the worksite. “It seems that everyone respected her.”

Mr. Koppe asked whether it was correct that Yeay Karo was related to Chea Sim, which the witness did not know. However, Mr. Oeng knew that they came from the same village.

He met him three times when he went to Stung as a guard of Sao Phim. At Stung, there was a small newly built house. He confirmed that Sao Phim often visited Chea Sim.[10] Sometimes, Ta Sim came to the office. He did not know much about the nature of the visits as he was outside the house. Mr. Koppe inquired whether it was correct that Chea Sim was the district officer of Ponhea Krek, which the witness confirmed. He was not close to Chea Sim and only saw him because he was with Sao Phim.

He recalled Sao Phim’s names: Nat, Sy, Kdev, and Tuch. He had two sons and two daughters. Mr. Koppe asked whether it was correct that Nat was the chairperson of the P-2 hospital, which Mr. Oeng confirmed. He said that Sy got married around ten days before he got married and therefore did not see her. Her siblings spoke of her, however. She got married with the son of the Northwest Zone committee Ruos Nhim. Mr. Koppe asked whether he remembered the name Cheal as the name of the son of Ruos Nhim. He said it did not sound familiar. They got married in the same year. His wife was still alive today. He asked whether he perhaps confused Sy with Kdev.[11] He said that Kdev disappeared, but that he did not know whether she was still alive. Kdev lived with her parents in Tuol Samraong. He did not know her alias. He heard about the in-law relationship after he arrived.[12] There was a big wedding tent, but he did not know for whose wedding this was.

Mr. Koppe inquired whether Ruos Nhim often came to the East Zone to visit Sao Phim. He rpelied that he saw him three times. He did not know the content of the discussion, as he stood outside of the building. The house was a traditional Cambodian house. The house was located to the north of a bridge. Ruos Nhim always came by himself, except sometimes when he came with a small boy. No guards were with him. He was there for one or two hours the most, as he had to return to his location the same day. He never went to the North Zone from the moment that he was a guard for Sao Phim.[13]

Mr. Koumjian said that the number of visits had been clarified by 2-TCW-1070 to be once or twice a year. Mr. Koppe asked whether he recalled that Sao Phim and Ruos Nhim “made a joke whenever they greeted each other.” He answered that he did not hear their conversations. “In fact, I was guarding at the outer compound.” He said that Ruos Nhim would called Sao Phim A-Siam (contemptible Thai) and Sao Phim would call him A-Yuon (contemptible Vietnamese).[14] The witness said that he had not heard of this. Mr. Koppe said that the other witness had said that they were “preparing armed forces” and “in fact planning a rebellion.” He asked whether Mr. Oeng had heard of this. He replied that he had never heard of this. “I was afraid that I would be arrested,” he said. He did not know what happened inside the party.

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

 

 

Sao Phim’s Family Members

He did not know when Sy got married, because she did not see it. Sao Phim trusted someone called Prak Chuk. Mr. Koppe then inquired about Prak Cham. The witness replied that he heard that Sao Phim was initially called Prak Cham. He was not sure about his sister Prak Chhun. “Only older people would know about their native names. Sao Phim’s sister was in charge of Ko Kir Saom cooperative. He knew Dol, who was Prak Tit. He became chief of Krouch Chhmar District.[15] Everybody was separated and the witness was sent to Sa’ang.

Mr. Koppe inquired whether he knew anything about the crushing of the Cham rebellion in Krouch Chhmar, which the witness denied – he had not been there in 1974. Mr. Koppe said that Kiernan had interviewed a person called Hem Samin, who he called “Hanoi-trained communist”.[16] This person had blamed Sao Phim for the crushing of the rebellion and the killings of the Cham. The witness had not heard of this.

Mr. Koppe asked who Mao Pouk was. The witness had mentioned this person with Sao Phim’s brother Prak Tit.[17] He said he did not know when he fled, as they were separated from each other. He knew that he was part of Unit 09.

He was not involved with clashes in the East Zone. He was arrested, but then managed to flee. However, a fight broke out before he could flee. There were meetings, but he did not know the content of the discussions. He was never present during the meetings.

Mr. Koppe inquired about Heng Samkai. He said that elder men “knew how to play some music called instruments.” He never had a conversation with him, but he spoke with his bodyguards. Mr. Koppe inquired whether he knew which position Heng Samkai had after 1979. He replied that he became the provincial governor of Svay Rieng. He did not know his position in the national assembly.[18]

Mr. Koppe asked whether it was correct that Heng Samrin’s younger brother Thal was commander of Division 4. The witness did not know. He knew that Heng Samrin was part of Division 4.

Mr. Koppe inquired about Division 5 and the person Heng Kim. Mr. Koppe asked whether Heng Kim was a relative of Heng Samrin. The witness that he did not know all names of the divisional chiefs. [19]

Mr. Koppe inquired whether he had ever heard of Keo Samnang which the witness denied. “What is not true will not be testified here.” He had not heard of Po Saroeun.

 

Coup d’état

Mr. Koppe then asked about Prak Chhuk that he had mentioned earlier and that the witness thought had died.[20] Mr. Koppe then asked about a coup d’état. He replied that he did not know the definition of a coup d’état. For him, there was a coup d’état as soon as there was a conflict within one unified government. He said the people in the east were not aware of plans to arrest. He had heard that Pol Pot had tried to stage a coup d’état. He did not know clearly who initiated the coup d’état. He only knew that the center waged arrests against the east. Mr. Koppe quoted his statement, in which he had said that Sao Phim said to Heng Samrin that they would fight again. He replied that it was almost at the end when they were almost separated from each other and left to different places. He heard this himself. Mr. Koppe wanted to know what Sao Phim meant when he said that they would “gather them up.” Mr. Oeng replied that the divisional and deputy chifs remained at the location. He said that they had talked about the resistance movement. This was when the witness went to “get the glasses.” He explained that they were sitting at the table and he had to clean his desk. Mr. Koppe asked how many days before Sao Phim’s death he told Heng Samrin to gather forces and fight Pol Pot. Mr. Oeng replied that it was approximately ten days before he died. They drank wine while talking, he said. Mr. Koumjian interjected and said that Sao Phim had said that he went to Phnom Penh to “sort things out” and that if he disappeared Heng Samrin should hide in the forest. He said Heng Samrin was not really known to him.

During the time, leaflets were dropped from airplanes.[21] The leaflets stated that Sao Phim had cooperated with “the yuon”. At this point, the hearing was adjourned for the day. It will resume Monday, December 5, 2016. There will be reserve witness 2-TCW-1060.

[1] E3/5932a; E3/10670a; E3/10670.

[2] E3/10670a, at 00422204 (EN), 00397758 (KH).

[3] E3/5932a, at 01332268 (EN), 00578456 (KH); D22/19414

[4] E3/10670

[5] E3/10716, at 0135332 (EN), 01340556 (KH).

[6] E3/3259, at P00416559.

[7] At 01353057 (EN), 01340559 (KH).

[8] E3/3250, at P00416551.

[9] E3/3015R, at 01:53.

[10] At 01340542 (KH).

[11] At 01354173 (EN).

[12] E3/10665, at 01151760 (EN), 01168447 (KH).

[13] E3/10717, at 01351765 (EN).

[14] E3/10717, at 01354177 (EN).

[15] At 01353315 (EN), 01340539 (KH).

[16] E3/1593, at 01150139 (EN), 00639033 (FR), 000637771 (KH).

[17] At 01353315 (EN), 01340539 (KH).

[18] E3/2376, at 00192440 (EN).

[19] E3/1568, at 00651894 (EN), 00713971 (KH), 00743368 (FR).

[20] At 01340554 (KH).

[21] At 01353348 (EN), 01340560 (KH).

Featured image: Witness Sin Oeng (ECCC: Flickr).