“Is this something you might have made up?” Victor Koppe Confronts Witness
In today’s hearing, former Lon Nol soldier and platoon chief Chhum Seng continued his testimony, circling largely around the topic of authority structure at Trapeang Thma Dam. In the second part of today’s hearing, another former Lon Nol soldier and unit chief at Trapeang Thma – Tak Buy – testified on issues concerning living and working conditions, as well as arrests and executions of people at and around Trapeang Thma Dam.
Serving as unit chief with a Lon Nol background
Today’s hearing started with President Nil Nonn announcing that due to a shortage of interpreters, all parties were instructed to speak slowly. First, the continued testimony of Chhum Seng would be heard. Then, the reserve witness 2-TCW-908 might be called. The Trial Chamber Greffier reported the presence of all parties with Nuon Chea participating from the holding cell. The President then gave the floor to the defense team for Nuon Chea.
Mr. Koppe continued yesterday’s questioning by turning to the topic of the structure of the mobile units. According to statement, there were three battalions under Ta Val. Mr. Koppe inquired who the instructors of these battalions were, to which the witness answered that three battalions would create a regiment. With regards to the regiment, he did not know who the chiefs were. He only knew that Ta Val was the one in charge of battalions. Being asked again, the witness restated that three battalions made up a regiment. There were groups of ten members and subgroups of three members. Three subgroups made up a squad, three squads a platoon, and three platoons a company. He never heard of the presence of regiments there.
Mr. Koppe asked whether it was correct that one of the commanders was Ta Vith, the second one Ta Phan, and the third was the one of the witnesses Mr. Koppe showed Mr. Seng yesterday.
At this point, Mr. de Wilde intervened, objecting to the question, because no source was mentioned. Moreover, he which period the counsel was talking about. To this, Mr. Koppe responded that he “obviously referred to the period when Ta Val was still in charge” and based the information on a DC-Cam statement.[1] Mr. Koppe then repeated the question to the witness. Mr. Seng answered that he knew all the names on the paper shown to him yesterday, but did not know their positions. He only knew that they were cadres on the sector level. Mr. Koppe stated that the witness said yesterday that he knew him very well and asked what his function was during the time at Trapeang Thma worksite. To this, the witness responded that they were cadres at the sector level. Mr. Koppe then asked whether these three people Mr. Koppe mentioned were higher or lower in rank, to which the witness stated “this is the fourth time I tell you” that he only knew that they were cadres.
Mr. Koppe inquired further that three battalions would make up one regiment and asked whether the chief of the regiment was called Ta San. Mr. Seng said that he did not know this individual and only knew Ta Val. Mr. Koppe then asked whether there were three battalions at Trapeang Thma consisting of women. Mr. Seng confirmed this. Mr. Koppe then inquired whether he knew the names of the three female commanders who led the female battalions. The witness answered that he only knew one of the three, namely Dayt. Mr. Koppe then asked whether he knew any of the female persons who were called Moa, Mit or Kin, to which Mr. Seng answered that he did not know them.
Moving on, Mr. Koppe asked whether the witness knew who Ta Val’s wife was. Mr. Seng answered that he saw her, but did not know her name or birth village. Mr. Koppe then asked whether the name Comrade Kim, which was the name of Ta Val’s wife, “would ring a bell.” Mr. Seng then said that he did not know about Ta Val’s background. His wife had never been at the worksite and he only saw her from time to time when visiting his house. Mr. Koppe then asked whether Mr. Seng heard that Ms. Kim is still alive today. The witness denied this.
Mr. Koppe then asked whether Mr. Seng could recall the name of Ta Val’s secretary. Mr. Seng responded that he only knew Ta Val and “had no idea about his assistance or secretaries.” He did not know whether he had any secretaries. Mr. Koppe asked, since Mr. Seng was close to him, whether he ever saw a woman who was “apparently very skillful in her tasks.” Mr. Seng said that he was close to Ta Val close to others, since Ta Val would ask Mr. Seng to perform assignments.
Mr. Koppe inquired whether Mr. Seng heard of someone called Brother Yoeuk, which the witness denied. Mr. Koppe then asked the president permission to present the photo of this person to the witness. Mr. Lavergne asked which photo Mr. Koppe referred to, to which Mr. Koppe answered that this witness had testified in court and photos were on the case file. Judge Fenz asked how the photo was connected to Brother Yoeuk, to which Mr. Koppe answered that there was a witness testifying before the court that the witness whose interview Mr. Koppe presented to Mr. Seng yesterday identified someone called Brother Yoeuk.[2] Mr. Koppe was given permission to present the photo to the witness. The photo was shown to the parties and the public. Asked whether he recognized the person, Mr. Seng affirmed this and said that his name was Yoeuk. He saw him distributing rice to the mobile units. Mr. Koppe queried whether he knew that Mr. Yoeuk had an adopted brother called Narin. Mr. Seng answered that he did not know his relatives.
Turning back to the execution of eleven people close to the dam, Mr. Koppe inquired why the unnamed witness[3], being a “commander of one of the big cells”, had no knowledge of arrests and executions, while Mr. Seng did hear about these and stated that Ta Val was responsible for them.
At this point Mr. de Wilde intervened, stating that these questions were speculative. The president upheld the objection.[4] Mr. Koppe then asked whether the witness knew anyone else who had knowledge about the executions. Mr. Seng answered that he did not know who was aware of this. Mr. Koppe then asked whether, when the witness was flattening the earth to cover the corpses, anyone else was present. The witness replied that the bodies at the dam site were so numerous that he could not recognize them. The workers covered them with earth.
Turning to the next topic, Mr. Koppe asked whether the witness ever heard of the Anlong Sar hospital. Mr. Seng testified that this hospital was located in Preah Net Perah, but he never went there. Mr. Koppe inquired whether this hospital belonged to the mobile units of which the witness was a member. Mr. Seng confirmed this. If there were many sick people, they would be taken to this hospital; otherwise they would be taken to Trrapeang Thma Wat hospital itself. Mr. Koppe asked whether the witness ever sent someone to the hospital who did not recover. Mr. Seng replied that there were no people who were so ill that they had to be taken to this hospital. Mr. Koppe asked whether this hospital had medicine in stock that was non-traditional, for example paracetamol-300 or Vitamin B Complex. Mr. Seng said that he did not know, since he never went there.
Taking over from his colleague, Khieu Samphan defense counsel Arthur Vercken started his examination by asking about his status as a former Lon Nol soldier and whether “he had kept this secret for so long”. Mr. Seng then said that he was to be arrested, but one militiaman called Cheng told his father that he was to be executed. Consequently, the witness fled to a mobile unit. This prompted Mr. Vercken to ask how Mr. Seng could explain that, holding such a position of authority, no one recognized him despite the fact that he was close to his home village.
Mr. Seng said that he hid his biography. In this mobile unit, there were not many base people and mostly people from afar. When asked what he had done before, he stated that he said that he was a village guard before. Mr. Vercken then asked whether all his subordinates were New People. Mr. Seng answered that the unit chiefs were base people. He did not know where his two assistants came from. Those who were soldiers at Phnom Lieb “were all massacred”.
Mr. Vercken then asked about the death of Mr. Seng’s father, who was not killed “even when revealing the Lon Nol background to a militiaman”. Mr. Seng said that his father died because of hunger. His mother told him that his father sometimes had only three spoons of rice.
Referring to Mr. Seng’s DC-Cam interview, Mr. Vercken read an excerpt[5] and asked again whether Mr. Seng never killed anyone, since he only had to accuse someone of not executing orders.
At this point, Civil Party Co-Lawyer requested leave to consult with his client, since an answer to this question might lead to self-incrimination. After having discussed with his Civil Party Co-Lawyer, Mr. Seng answered that “this is a very particular question, and it is very fair, since Ta Val was the person directly issuing the orders for people to be executed”. However, no such incident occurred in the witness’ unit according to Mr. Seng. Mr. Vercken then asked whether Mr. Seng had the right to kill someone. The witness confirmed this. Ta Val issued an order to monitor people, which meant that unit leaders had the right to kill people.
Referring back to the DC-Cam statement, Mr. Vercken inquired about a passage where Ta Val did not ask about people who disappeared. He asked whether it was sufficient to say that someone had not executed orders. To this, the witness answered that in his unit, this kind of incident never occurred. Mr. Vercken then asked to confirm whether people in charge at the dam had no level of occupation. Mr. Seng then said that he was speaking for himself when saying this, since he was not well-educated. As for others, he did not know their level of education.
Mr. Vercken said that the witness had stated that he had to stack up earth and asked how his work was carried out in practical terms. Mr. Seng said that this depended on units. Members of his unit carried earth, and Mr. Seng was using spates or hoes to flatten the earth.
Mr. Vercken then referred to the amber test (see post of August 17), asking why Mr. Seng was flattening the earth over the dead bodies. “What were you doing there?” Mr. Seng replied by repeating the story that he had told the last two days. Mr. Seng carried earth the next day. Mr. Vercken then asked whether he would have heard when these people were shot. The witness replied that bullets were rarely used; they were only used when people tried to flee at the Thai border. “The Khmer Rouge preferred using the back of hoes or bamboo sticks. “
After the break, Khieu Samphan defense team continued the examination of the witness. Mr. Vercken redirected his questions to the “hot-amber-test” and asked whether this took place at the beginning of his time at Trapeang Thma worksite. Mr. Seng answered by recounting the story. Mr. Vercken interrupted the witness and repeated the question. The witness answered that this occurred in 1978. Mobile units were transporting earth to build the first bridge at the dam. Mr. Vercken then asked why the witness “left the scene”. Mr. Seng answered that he saw the dead bodies the next day. Mr. Vercken asked whether when Mr. Seng arrived the next morning the dead bodies had not yet been covered. Mr. Seng confirmed this. His unit had to raise the dam at the location that the bodies were. Mr. Vercken then asked whether this was the only time that he saw dead bodies, which the witness confirmed. He then asked why the witness said that it took place in 1978. The witness answered that it took place in 1978; they had to continue raising the dyke.
Mr. Vercken then turned to his last question, asking what his assignments were during his time as a Lon Nol soldier. Mr. Seng replied that in 1972, since was not successful in school, he voluntarily joined the army at Training Center Number 4. They took courses in military strategy and was working as the bodyguard of another Lon Nol soldier. Mr. Vercken then inquired whether his task was to accompany him to all these “theatres of oppression.” Mr. Seng recounted the different places he was located at. Mr. Vercken asked that whether that meant that during these two years he was rarely present at the battlefronts. Mr. Seng answered that he never went to the battlefront or the “theatres of oppressions”. With this, Mr. Vercken concluded his questioning.
The president thanked the witness for his time and dismissed him. The president then instructed the court officer to lead 2-TCW-908 into the courtroom.
Former Lon Nol Soldier testifies: Tak Buy
Tak Buy, born October 10, 1954, had taken an oath before the iron statute. The president informed the witness about his rights and obligations, including the right not to self-incriminate. The witness had been interviewed in 2007. The president first gave the floor to the Civil Party Lawyers and the Co-Prosecution, having two sessions in total to examine the witness.
Civil Party Co-Lawyer Ven Pov started his line of questioning by asking where the witness was living before 17 April 1975. The witness replied that he was living in Trapeang Thma village, Battambang Province. After he completed his education, he was recruited into the Lon Nol army in 1972 and was stationed at Phnom Srok District. He was a corporal soldier and did not hold any rank. Asked about his life after 1975, he answered that he was living in Trapeang Thma village as a member of a mobile unit. Mr. Pov asked whether Mr. Buy knew Trapeang Thma worksite. The witness confirmed this, stating that it was situated in Trapeang Thma village, Sector 5 of the Northwest Zone. Mr. Pov asked whether there were any meetings there before the construction started. To this, Mr. Buy answered that he did not know, since he was not yet there at the time. Mr. Pov further inquired whether he had ever been assigned to work at Trapeang Thma and if so, when. He said he was sent to work there in 1977 when building the dam. Asked whether it was only him or all members of Trapeang Thma worksite, he said that there was a selection of youths, unmarried youths and married youths who divided into groups. Mr. Buy said that they were forced to work, as “no one could refuse the assignment. Otherwise they would disappear.” Asked about who sent him to the worksite, Mr. Buy stated that it was the chief of the mobile unit who was called Chin who sent him there.
Mr. Pov asked whether he was sent there in early, mid- or late 1977, to which the witness replied that it was during dry season. Asked whether there were houses and shelters built for them, the witness said that they were “own their own” and had to collect planks and cut trees to get trunks on their own to build shelter. The housing was around five hundred meters to one kilometer away from their worksite. Shortly after their arrivals, they were given black trousers and a shirt. They did not receive mosquito nets, blankets, hammocks or sleeping mats. In order to have something to sleep on, some people split the bamboo sticks and turned them into sleeping mats. According to Mr. Buy, some other people had a bag and tied them to a hammock. There were no proper latrines and toilets. Instead, members had to dig one meter deep pits and put two sticks over these. People would squat over them.
Mr. Pov then asked where exactly they were located to work at – was it at the edge or in the middle of the worksite? Mr. Buy replied that members of his unit were stationed to the north of Bridge One. Asked about his position in the unit, Mr. Buy said that he was chief of a platoon. He had one deputy and one member below him, who had passed away by that time. There were thirty members in his platoon. Asked about differences in working conditions between 17th April people and other people, Mr. Buy stated that those who had been living in a city were considered 17th April people. There was no difference in terms of work quota: “everyone had to fulfill the quota of three cubic meters per day, including unit chiefs.” There would be meetings “every once in a while to advise them not to be lazy”.
Mr. Pov asked whether there were any instructions to make biographies in these meetings. The witness said that he was afraid that his background would be known to others, but biographies were not required. Asked whether it was true that he hid his biography, Mr. Buy confirmed it, “but still, some information was leaked out.” Mr. Pov asked why he was afraid and hid his biography. The witness answered that if it was found out that one was a former soldiers or civil servant, this person would be killed. Mr. Pov then inquired whether there was anyone who could not complete the work quota. Mr. Buy recalled that there was a work quota, which increased with the time. At the beginning, they were able to accomplish two cubic meters per day, and if they were able to accomplish them, the work quota would be increased.
Turning back to the topic of the killings of former Lon Nol soldiers, Mr. Pov asked how Mr. Buy knew that such instructions applied. Mr. Buy said that the upper echelon did not lay out such instructions, but he observed that from people disappeared sometimes, and most of them were former soldiers or civil servants. This made him afraid.
Civil Party Lawyer Mr Pov then asked about the working conditions. Mr. Buy said that they worked from 7 am to 11 am and then from 2 pm to 5 pm. He confirmed that there were also night shifts. At the beginning, they were required only during the day time, but later on people who got the “blindness disease” had to work also at night time.
Mr. Pov asked about the term Special Case Unit, but the witness had never heard about this, saying that he might have worked in another part of the worksite. Mr Pov then asked whether he heard of anyone committing moral offences. The witness said yes, but that he did not know what these offences were. The wrongdoings of people were mentioned in a meeting during Khmer New Year. This prompted Mr. Pov to ask what was discussed during this meeting. The witness answered that the radio was broadcasted, but he could not remember anything else. Turning to his last question before lunch break, Mr. Pov asked whether there were any monitors in his unit. Mr. Buy denied this, but said that he saw armed militiamen at night.
Before the break, Judge Lavergne took the floor to clarify information for purposes of transparency about Tak Buy, who is a witness in Case 002, but also a Civil Party Applicant in Case 004. His application has been forwarded and is therefore accessible in Case 002. The corresponding documents are E319/25.3.48 and E319/25.3.48/1. Mr. Koppe asked to clarify why Civil Party Lawyers started the questioning, to which the president answered that the witness was requested by the Civil Party Lawyers and therefore start questioning according to Rule 91bis.
Food Rations and Hot Battlefields
After the morning adjournment, Mr. Vercken remarked that the chamber should admit the civil party application to the evidence, since he needed time to read the Civil Party application. Mr. Farr replied that the document had been available to all parties already. He would not have any objection to the admission of the document. The president stated that the document was given an E3 number, which meant that it was on record. However, he did not know at which level of admissibility the document was at the moment. Mr. Vercken said that Mr. Lysak at announced a few weeks ago that the civil party applications did not contain any very important information for this segment of the trial and that a request would be made to admit the document as evidence. Then, Guiraud then stood up, saying that civil party lawyers did make the request to use the document, but did not have the time to file a rule 87(4) application.
After this discussion, the Trial Chamber Judges conferred at length and decided, as
Judge Lavergne stated, that the chamber was well aware that the doc had been available to all parties. The chamber had informed the parties that the Civil Party Co-Lawyers intended to use the document, and since no objection to the use of this doc seems to have existed, the document would be admissible. This meant, according to Judge Lavergne, that when a party intends to use a new document that is available on the case file, the document is understood as being admissible as long as no objection is made and no rule 87(4) application would be needed.
Mr. Ven Pov then proceeded to ask about food rations at Trapeang Thma. The witness replied that he “wouldn’t know how food was distributed, but there was sufficient food”. Nevertheless, people “wouldn’t eat enough, because everyone was sleepy”. Asked about what food there was, the witness said that there were cooks who distributed the food to the workers. Pressed on, Mr. Buy said that they ate rice and “had enough to eat in order to build the dyke.” However, the food was exposed and therefore covered with flies. Mr Pov then asked whether the witness heard anyone complaining about the shortage of food, which the witness denied. However, they were not sleeping enough, so they were not eating enough either. This prompted Mr. Pov to ask whether some people fell sick due to exhaustion.
Some people had diarrhea and people drank “dirty water”. They were therefore sent to hospitals.
Mr. Pov then asked whether there were permanent health care workers who distributed medicine. Mr. Buy confirmed that there was permanent medical staff, but they mostly had traditional medicine “of brown color”. The health care workers had not been educated in their field, but they were referred to as health care workers nevertheless. The medicine was called rabbit pellets and was used to treat diarrhea. Those who were ill “were sent somewhere”, but he did not know whether they were treated or died.
Mr. Pov then turned to the issue occupational accidents and asked whether Mr. Buy witnessed any. The witness answered this question in the negative. When asked about equipment at the worksite, Mr. Buy answered that all the work was done manually.
Mr. Pov inquired whether Mr. Buy heard or witnessed arrests or disappearances in his unit. Mr. Buy stated that the battalion chiefs told him that Ta Val had been arrested, but he did not witness this. Mr. Pov clarified that this question did not refer to Ta Val but to ordinary workers, to which the witness responded that there were no arrests in his unit.
Turning to the next topic, Mr. Pov inquired about Ta Val’s function. The witness replied that he did not know about his exact function and did not know who arrested him. Regarding the execution sites and pits, Mr. Pov asked whether anyone pointed out places to Mr. Buy where executions took place. Mr. Buy answered that there were pits by the dam itself. People were killed, but the workers did not know why. When they carried earth to build the dykes, “we came across bodies.” There were bodies at the bottom and the crest of the dam, and also in the fields. While people were plowing, they “would sometimes come across these bodies”. He did not know the number.
Asked by Mr. Pov about forced marriage, the witness said that marriage was not actually forced. The couples agreed to get married. Me. Pov sought clarification by asking whether the marriage was arranged by the unit chiefs or whether they themselves chose to get married. Mr. Buy answered that if the man proposed and the woman accepted, they would be married. Sometimes, fifty couples would marry at once. Asked whether he attended a marriage ceremony, the witness said that he attended one ceremony. When questioned whether parents were present at this occasion, Mr. Buy said that only the couples themselves were present. Monks were not invited. Answering the civil party lawyer’s question, there were no monks in pagodas either.
Mr. Pov then asked whether the witness participated in the welcoming ceremony at the dam. Mr. Buy said he attended one meeting, which Chhim Yong Kuy also attended. Around 20 vehicles came, black trousers, black shirts, he was told that Cheng Ying Kouy was visiting the site.
The president gave the floor to Mr. Pov’s colleague, Mr. Pich An, who started the questioning by asking for clarification of members of his mobile unit and other mobile units. Did members of his mobile unit start work at the same time as the members of Mr. Buy’s unit? The witness answered that they were working from 7am until 11 am. There were also night shifts. Mr. An inquired whether anyone started working before 7 in the morning, which the witness did not confirm. He did not know about other units.
Turning to his last topic, Mr. An asked whether Mr. Buy saw the bodies in the pits and whether there were many bodies. The witness answered that he did not see the bodies. While carrying earth, he noticed that “the earth was soft” and he understood that there were bodies in the ground. Asked for clarification about “the earth was soft”, he said that usually earth was solid, but some places were soft while stepping on there, so they understood that there was something below it. Mr. An further inquired whether the soil was soft because of the rain, to which Mr. Buy answered that it was during the dry season: How could it be soft? Mr. An then asked to describe the pits: how large and deep were they? They were not big pits, when the bodies discomposed, the earth split there. Mr. Buy witnessed one time when carrying earth, he could see that there were corpses under the earth. There was an odor that could be smelled in the open air. There was no order at the wells, but when relieving themselves they could smell the decomposing bodies. Mr. An further asked whether there were many bodies in the fields. Mr. Buy said that many corpses were at the base of the dam. Mr. An then asked whether the open field where the witness saw corpses was within the compound of the worksite. The witness answered that this was the case: it was located both within and outside the compound of the worksite.
At this point, Senior Assistant Prosecutor Travis Farr started his questioning by asking whether Mr. Buy could give an estimate of the time that he spent at the dam. The witness said that he could not recall. Mr. Farr further inquired whether the mobile unit he was working in was associated to a district level. Mr. Farr then asked how the witness was selected to be deployed at the worksite, to which Mr. Buy answered that the work was not voluntary: male and female youths were separated from parents.
Mr. Farr proceeded to read an excerpt[6] and asked Mr. Buy why he “had doubts” over his potential survival. The witness answered that they were selected and sent to the worksite. After they arrived, they were divided into units. He was part of a platoon and was instructed to build a dam. Mr. Farr then asked whether the witness remembered having felt fear. Mr. Buy said that he was “full of fear” because he had served in the Lon Nol army before.
Turning to Ta Val’s position at the worksite, Mr. Farr inquired what his roles were. The witness answered that Ta Val had overall supervision over Trapeang Thma worksite. Asked about the authority structure at the dam, the witness said that above this there was a company, and above a company, it was a battalion. Ta Val had overall supervision over the platoons. With regards to Mr. Buy’s immediate superior, the witness stated that the chief of the company was Pik Man, and Mit Bou.
According to Mr. Buy’s testimony, the chief of a company was responsible for three platoons. Mr. Farr then inquired whether, as a chief of a platoon, Mr. Buy would speak to Pik Man. The witness replied that after 5 pm, they had to make a report to the chief of the company, including information on the work achieved. There were no instructions from the chief of company except that they should be hard working and that if someone avoided work, they would disappear. It was Mit Boh who told him so when he submitted a verbal report to him.
Mr. Farr then turned to ask why military terms were used to describe authority structures in Sector 5. Mr. Buy said that he did not know the reason. Did he ever hear the terms “Hard offences” or “hot battlefields” to describe Trapeang Thma? The witness replied that Trapeang Thma was frequently referred to as the “hot battlefield”. Trapeang Thma worksite consisted of the Special Force Unit. He understood this term as indicating that they were required to work very hard. If they did not do so, they would be accused of “being linked to the tendency”. Asked whether he ever heard a comparison between the sacrifices made by Khmer Rouge in fighting against Lon Nol and the work at Trapeang Thma, Mr. Buy said that he had not heard this comparison.
Mr. Koppe intervened and asked where this information came from. Mr. Farr then provided the relevant information.[7]
Resuming his questioning, Mr. Farr asked what Mr. Buy meant by “he was cruel”. Asked whether he ever heard him referred to as the “chief executioner”, Mr. Buy said that “Ta Val was wicked”, since people died at the worksite and all people who died were under his responsibilities. Mr. Farr then asked whether he knew of any assistants. Comrade Yoan supervised in his place when Ta Val was absent.
Mr. Farr read out an excerpt[8] of Mr. Buy’s DC-Cam statement, where the witness was asked about Ta Val who was referred to as the direct chief executioner. Mr. Farr asked for clarification what Mr. Buy meant when saying that a person “pulled out like a cabbage”. Mr. Buy explained that if a person was lazy, he was “immediately uprooted.” This meant was that Ta Val was chief executioner. According to Mr. Buy, he had to “assume responsibility for those acts”, if subordinates committed crimes.
Killings of ethnic Vietnamese and Chinese
After the break, Mr. Farr resumed his line of questioning. He asked how often Ta Val was absent from the worksite, as Mr. Buy had stated that another cadre would take over his job. He did not know how often he was absent. Neither did he know where Ta Val went when being absent. The witness assumed that he was arrested by Southwest Zone cadres. Mr. Farr then inquired who Ta Val’s superior was and who he reported to. Mr. Buy did not know “perhaps the report was submitted to the sector.” Asked whether he ever reported directly to Ta Val, Mr. Buy said that he had never done this, because he was very low in the hierarchical structure.
Turning to an occasion that the witness mentioned in his DC-Cam statement, Mr. Farr inquired about the celebration that the witness described as a combination of Khmer New Year and the anniversary of the 17th of April. Mr. Buy stated that there was a meeting held in Phnom Penh, while the witness was in a separate meeting in his area. Khmer New Year fell onto the 12th, 13th and 14th of April. The meeting was held for one morning. Mr. Farr then asked whether there were any musical celebrations, which Mr. Buy denied. Pressing on, Mr. Farr sought clarifications by referring to an excerpt of the same statement, where the witness had stated that “they danced with their uniforms and weapons.” Mr. Buy said that he must have confused them and that these theatrical performances took place during weddings and not at this celebration. Mr. Farr then asked whether he could recall hearing songs about arresting Vietnamese or Lon Nol soldiers. The witness replied that Vietnamese were arrested. Asked on the issue of music, Mr. Buy stated that he did not remember the content of the music.
Asked about the number of arrests of ethnic Vietnamese and Chinese, he stated that he did not know the number. “The whole family was arrested. First they arrested husband, after which it was the time of children and wives.” Mr. Farr then asked about the means of transportations with which the people were taken away. Mr. Buy said that they were green trucks. As regards time period, Mr Buy stated that it took place between around ten or eleven in the evening. He heard people saying that the wives and children had to be taken elsewhere. Mr. Farr asked whether it was correct that this happened before the period that Mr. Buy worked at Trapeang Thma worksite, which the witness confirmed. He estimated that it might have taken place in mid or late 1976.
Turning to the location Veal Ta Kuy, Mr. Farr asked what the tasks were. Mr. Buy replied that these were fields and corpses were buried there. Mr. Farr inquired how far this location was away from the daily work place. The witness replied that it was close to Trapeang Thma. Asked how he knew that corpses were buried there, the witness stated that he could smell the odor and when he relieved himself. This happened once. Mr. Farr inquired whether Mr. Buy ever witnessed any execution himself, which the witness denied.
Mr. Farr then asked whether Mr. Buy was aware of any arrests or disappearances in his unit. Mr. Buy said that no worker disappeared, but a few fled to their home towns. Outside his unit, Mr. Buy did not know.
Mr. Farr read an excerpt of Mr. Buy’s DC-Cam statement[9] about the arrests of people and asked whether the given details refreshed the witness’ memory. Mr. Buy talked about how Moan was removed and reassigned to live in another unit. He never saw him again after he left. Moan left on his own, after having told Mr. Buy that he was removed.
Last, Mr. Farr read out a short excerpt from the same statement about people who wore uniforms and rifles and whether this refreshed the witness’ statement. Mr. Buy said that he had never seen these people.
At this point, Nuon Chea defense counsel Victor Koppe started his line of questioning and asked whether he understood it correctly that Mr. Buy became a corporal before 1975. Mr. Buy said that he was a low-ranking soldier and not a corporal, but a sergeant or private instead. Asked for clarification, Mr. Buy said that he did not hold any rank and was a private. Mr. Koppe then inquired about the roles of the witness, who replied that he participated in the battlefields two to three times. Mr. Koppe pressed further, asking whether he was involved in active combat, which the witness confirmed. Mr. Koppe asked whether he killed Khmer Rouge soldiers during this combat. The witness replied that he did not know whether the bullets hit the targets. Mr. Koppe then asked whether he understood correctly that he was stationed at Phnom Srok district for the whole time as a soldier. The witness confirmed this.
Mr. Koppe further asked whether he witnessed any soldiers being decapitated during his time as a soldier, which Mr. Buy denied.
Mr. Koppe asked whether Mr. Buy indicated in his biography that he had to make after 1975 that he held a small rank in the Lon Nol regime. The witness replied that he did fill this in at first. After April 1975, he was able to hide the biography only for a short period of time.
Mr. Koppe read an excerpt[10], where the witness stated that he also indicated that he was a soldier on his biography, and asked whether this refreshed his memory. The witness replied that this was the case. Mr. Koppe asked how his survival could be explained, since he testified earlier that “former Lon Nol soldiers were killed.” Mr. Buy answered that he was not executed, since he was under the administrative control of the Northwest Zone at first, and since he was a soldier only for a short period of time and was ignorant, “they were very tolerant towards him.” After the people from the Southwest Zone arrived, he “became an ordinary citizen.” Pressed by Mr. Koppe, Mr. Buy reiterated that if he hadn’t concealed his biography following the arrival of the Southwest Zone, “something bad would have happened”.
Moving on to the next subject about the character of Ta Val, Mr. Koppe asked – seeing that he stated that Ta Val was a “cruel and frightening man” – whether he was relieved when Ta Val was arrested. Mr. Buy denied this, since after he was arrested, people from the Southwest Zone took power; he was still living in a state of fear, since he “didn’t know when his turn would come”. Thus, he worked as hard as possible and tried to conceal his identity as a Lon Nol soldier.
Quoting parts of his statement,[11] Mr. Koppe sought clarification about the statement that company chiefs who were close to Ta Val disappeared, while those who were not were unharmed. Mr. Buy answered that those who were close to Ta Val disappeared. Mr. Koppe then asked whether Mr. Buy was close to Ta Val, which he denied. This prompted Mr. Koppe to ask whether it would be fair to say that he was not afraid of arrest, since he was not close to Ta Val. Asked how he would explain that those close to him were arrested, Mr. Buy stated that those people who were close to Ta Val fled. Mr. Koppe then inquired who these people were. The witness could not recall this. Mr. Koppe then asked whether these close subordinates fled to Koh Kleng Mountain, which the witness did not know. Ta Val’s right-hand men fled, but he did not know where to.
Mr. Koppe inquired about the reasons for Ta Val’s arrest. Mr. Buy stated to have heard from the intermediate battalion chief that Ta Val’s subordinates fled. Mr. Koppe repeated his question. Mr. Buy could not give the reasons. Mr. Koppe asked whether the witness also had heard, like another witness, that Ta Val was arrested and killed “because he was a killer”.[12] To this, Mr. Buy replied that he did not know the reasons for his arrests. At this point, Mr. Farr intervened, stating that the witness said in the same statement[13] that Ta Yoeun, who came from the Southwest Zone, arrested and killed many people.
Mr. Koppe then asked whether he heard of Ta Val being involved in starting an involved rebellion, which the witness did not. “All I know is that Ta Val was arrested.”
Turning to the topic of the arrests of people of Chinese ethnicity, Mr. Koppe asked how the witness found out that people of Chinese ethnicity were arrested. The witness stated that there was a search for people of Chinese and Vietnamese ethnicity. Only husbands were arrested at first, but ultimately they also arrested women and children. In his statement, “a person would not be spared of his or her life when they knew that this person had Chinese blood”.[14] Mr. Koppe asked the witness to expand on this issue, who claimed that his wife was said to be of Chinese origin, which was not the case. The witness said that this took place in 1978 and “I was young.” This is why he “said that people of Chinese origin were targeted”. Later in the statement, the witness said that “truckloads of Chinese were taken to be smashed.” Mr. Koppe asked what made the witness say this. Mr. Buy said this, since those persons never came back once transported away.
At this point, the president intervened and said that reminded the witness about his duty to tell the truth. If he does not know something, he should say so.
In his last questions before the adjournment, Mr. Koppe asked, since he never heard of “truckloads of Chinese being smashed”, whether this “is something that you might have made up?” The witness answered that he saw these people being put in trucks and driven away. Mr. Koppe further inquired how he knew that these people in the trucks were of Chinese descent. To this Mr. Farr intervened, stating that the statement refers to “Chinese and Vietnamese” and that referring to only one group would likely lead to confusion. Mr. Koppe continued his line of questioning. The witness stated that his neighbor, a militiaman, told him that people of Chinese descent had been collected.
The president adjourned today’s session at 4 pm. Mr. Buy’s testimony will be continued tomorrow, August 20 2015, with witness 2-TCW-841 being on the reserve.
[1] E3/9076, at 00731161, 00728855-56 (KH) [2] E3/9076, at 00731178 (ENG), 00728880 (KH) [3] The document number is E3/9076. [4] Later on, Mr. Koppe gave the relevant document, which was E3/9076, at 00731169 (ENG, 00728867 (KH) [5] E3/9010, at 01123589 00728603 (ENG ) 00730784 (KH) [6] E3/7968 : 00726128 (EN), 0057749-50 (KH), 00743261 (FR) [7] According to Mr. Farr, this comparison was made in the document E3/771, which was titled the Revolutionary Youth Magazine of Jul-August 1977. [8] 00726113, 0057732 (KH) 00743242 (FR) [9] 00726119 (EN ) 00057739 (KH) 00743249 (FR) [10] 00726111 (EN) 00743240 (FR) 00057730 (KH), [11] 00726114 (EN) 00743244 (FR) 00057734 (KH), [12] E3/7805, at 00277815, 00267743 (KH) 00315174 (FR) [13] 00277817 (EN), 00267746 (KH) 00315177 (FR) [14] 00726113 (E) 00743242 (FR) 00057732 (KH)