No physical abuse – Former Cadre Testifies on Trapeang Thma Dam
In today’s session in front of the ECCC, a former cadre testified who supervised workers at the Trapeang Thma Dam worksite and sometimes replaced Ta Val in his absence. The witness’s name was kept secret due to confidentiality reasons. He testified that sufficient food was available, although water resources and firewood was scarcer. He also stated that workers could rest once they fulfilled their work quota and that “no physical abuse” occurred to those who were claimed to have engaged in moral misconduct.
Submissions on Filings by Co-Investigating Judge
At the beginning of the session, the Trial Chamber Greffier confirmed the presence of all parties, with Nuon Chea following the proceedings from the holding cell.
The President then asked for submissions regarding two documents filed by the Co-Investigating Judges before the testimony of witness 2-TCW-918 would be heard.
International Co-Prosecutor Nicholas Koumjian stated that he had not been prepared to make submissions already. However, he reiterated that the procedures that were in place had been and were still sufficient to ensure confidentiality of procedures. He also pointed out that it was the Trial Chamber’s duty to justify any exclusion of the public on a case-by-case basis for witnesses that are testifying in front on the court. This would not be possible with an independent judge.
International Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer Marie Guiraud stated that she did not have any specific objections with regards to E319/35. As for the proposed Civil Parties and witnesses, they would rely on the court’s wisdom.
Nuon Chea International Defense Counsel Victor Koppe also said that he had not been prepared to make submissions today and therefore did not have any comments. However, he pointed out that the right to public trial was the right of the accused.
Khieu Samphan International Defense Counsel Anta Guissé said she did not understand why the parties should not be able to mention the witnesses publicly if they had made statements that were available to the public. She said that for other statements, the measures had been sufficient in the past.Since the issue related to the present witness, the President announced a 25 minute recess to deliberate on this matter.
Ruling on Public Hearings: reversal of E319/7/3
After a forty minute deliberation, the President issued the decision on the matter. There had been an order that all testimonies of all witnesses who had testified in Case 003 and 004 would be heard in closed session.[1] According to Article 34 New of the ECCC Law and Internal Rules 79, the accused had a fundamental right to a public trial. The International Co-Investigating Judge no longer held it necessary to hold all sessions in camera. Thus, the Chamber reversed its rule of E319/7/3 and issued additional guideline: for witnesses and Civil Parties who had testified in Cases 003 and 004, pseudonyms had to be used.
As for E319/7 paragraph 11-12, the International Co-Investigating Judge had indicated that they would request support by the Witness and Expert Support Section (WESU) for witnesses who he considers to need additional measures for security. The Chamber would apply any protective measures ordered for Case 003 and Case 004 witnesses.
The President announced that the last request by the ICIJ that a small number of witnesses as identified in the near future should be heard in closed session could not be ruled upon until the list of witnesses was finalized.
Mr. Koumjian requested clarification and asked whether there was still need to use a pseudonym if a witness has no objection to use real name. Moreover, he stated that the right of the accused for public trial as set out in Article 79(6) was not restricted to the accused. There was also a public interest that needed to be respected. Mr. Koumjian cited two cases to support his argument.[2]
Ms. Guissé asked whether the need to use pseudonyms also applied to those witnesses who had testified in both Case 002 and Case 003 or 004.
The President announced that this would be decided on a case-by-case basis. Next, the testimony of witness 2-TCW-918 began. To uphold confidentiality, the President asked the witness to confirm the information about his place of birth and residency that was indicated on a paper that the President gave him. The witness confirmed this.
The floor was then given to the International Co-Prosecutors, who would have one day to question the witness together with the Civil Party lawyers.
Testimony on Trapeang Thma
International Deputy Co-Prosecutor Dale Lysak started his line of questioning by asking whether the witness could identify the names and number of dams he worked at prior to working at Trapeang Thma Dam.
The witness answered that he had worked at Phnom Kambor, with a length of 13 kilometers. The dam was put in operation after the completion. Second, he worked at Kok Romcheck, which around 18 kilometers long. The third worksite he worked at was a cotton tree plantation. Fourth, he worked at the construction of a road. The last dam he worked at was Trapeang Thma Dam.
Mr. Lysak asked whether the witness had also worked at the Dam Ta Khieu in 1974, which the witness confirmed. Asked how the Khmer Rouge made people work at that dam site, the witness stated that male and female youths were selected. They were evacuated from Phnom Penh to live in villages and cooperatives, after which they were sent to work at that dam site. Mr. Lysak clarified that he was asking about Ta Khieu Dam and not Kambor. The witness answered that elderly people and youths were selected to work there. He confirmed that people were arrested and sent to work at the worksite.
At this point, Mr. Kong Sam Onn objected, since the question was not within the scope of the trial. Mr. Lysak stated that it was relevant to determine the scope of the practice of arresting people and forcing them to work there. The President announced that the objection was overruled. Although the questioning was outside of the scope of the trial in terms of timing and location, but it was helpful to determine the policy.
Mr. Lysak then referred to one of the witness’s prior statements, in which he had talked about arrests of People in Preah Net Preah district who were sent to work at Ta Khieu.[3] The witness answered that some people were selected to work at the dam site.
Mr. Lysak wanted to know who assigned the witness as deputy chief of Sector 5 mobile forces, as he had indicated to have been the deputy chief from July 1975 until January 1976 in his interview. The witness replied that no one appointed him. He was in charge of measuring the land. “I was not appointed to be the deputy chief”.
This prompted Mr. Lysak to refer to the witness’s prior statements, in which he had stated that he was the deputy chief of Sector 5 Mobile Unit, which was under the supervision of the sector committee.[4] In his DC-Cam interview, he had also said that Ta Hoeng appointed him Deputy Chief under Ta Val and that he was responsible for the supervision when Ta Val was absent.[5]The witness answered that he replaced Ta Val when Ta Val was absent, but not fully. “I was called the commander of the battlefield”, which meant to supervise the workers at the dam site. “Under me, there were only six people. I was not in charge of hundreds of [workers]”.
Mr. Lysak then inquired how often he met with Ta Val and Ta Hoeng. The witness stated that he had to report to Ta Val every evening in 1976.
Mr. Lysak asked who was the witness’s immediate superior when working at Kambor and Kok Romcheck worksite. The witness replied that it was Ta Val. Ta Val was in charge of sector 5. The witness denied being the deputy of Ta Val. He was one commander of the battle field. Mr. Lysak then asked who Ta Val’s deputy chief was if it was not the witness. The witness had previously indicated having been the deputy.[6] The witness replied that there was no deputy and that he only replaced Ta Val “once in a while.”
Mr. Lysak then wanted to know why military terms were used to describe work at a dam. The witness replied that he had “no idea” and that he used the term, because he heard it at the time.
Mr. Lysak proceeded to refer to one of the interviews, during which the witness had stated that “we just talked in military terms” and supervised workers like soldiers.[7]The witness replied that Ta Val convened meetings and that in these meetings Ta Val asked whether they were committed to the project.
Mr. Lysak then asked what the negative effects on the workers were that he had mentioned. This caused Mr. Sam Onn to object. Mr. Lysak repeated his question and asked what the negative consequences were of working three months at the dam. Mr. Sam Onn objected again, since it sought an assumption to be made by the witness. Mr. Lysak stated that he was asking for an explanation of the witness’s own words. The objection was overruled.
The witness replied that they had to work harder to finish the dam on time. For example, they had to work on three cubic meters instead of the set quota of two cubic meters if they felt that they were not able to finish the assignment in time. This was, according to the witness, not strictly set by Angkar.
Mr. Lysak then asked what the witness had meant with the first part of the sentence when saying that “They wanted the strong ones. Therefore, the people had to suffer extremely”.
Mr. Lysak then wanted to know whether the witness knew the Central Committee of the Party during the Democratic Kampuchea regime. The witness replied that he heard people talking about it, but did not know who they referred to. He thought it was a legal body and not a group of people. “Only when the Vietnamese arrived” he knew that there was someone called Pol Pot.
Mr. Lysak inquired whether the witness remembered someone use the expression ‘Great Leap Forward’, and if he did, what he understood that to mean. The witness replied that he did not know.
Mr. Lysak asked whether the witness ever heard about a project to build irrigation projects as quickly as possible throughout the country, which the witness denied. This prompted Mr. Lysak to read out an excerpt a document.[8] This document had indicated that Trapeang Thma Dam was built in less than two months in response to the call of the leadership. Mr. Lysak inquired whether the witness was aware of any instructions from the Central Committee to the construction of the dam. The witness replied that he neither witnessed the Chinese delegation visiting the site, nor did he know about visits of the Central Committee.
He did not see any documents like the Revolutionary Youth, since his reading skills were limited.
Mr. Lysak sought leave to present one issue of April 1977 of the Revolutionary Youth, which was granted.[9] He then asked whether the witness ever saw any of these issues in any office, which the witness denied. “I never saw this kind of document.”
Mr. Lysak then asked when he worked on the two dams the witness had identified earlier. The witness replied that he could not recall the exact time. He worked at Kambor worksite when the water started to recede, which could mean that he worked there in mid-December or early January in Kok Romcheck.
Mr. Lysak asked whether it was correct that he worked there sometime in the first half of 1976, which the witness confirmed. However, he might have done the measurement in late 1975.The workforce at the dam totaled 6500 people.
Kambor was 13 meters long. The height was between 1 and 1.5 meters, depending on the height of the water. The other dam was 18 kilometers. For Kambor Dam project, they were told to complete it before Khmer New Year. For Kok Romcheck Dam the timing was the same. The worksite for the latter was around 4,000 people. Since Kambor was shorter, they had to finish it first.
The work time was the same at all dams. They received three cans of rice at each dam. The work quotas were different, since “Trapeang Thma were huge in size”, while the other two dams were not far away from the location where the soil was dug. Thus, it did not take them as long to carry the earth as at Trapeang Thma dam.
The witness then recounted one incident: “I saw a vehicle and a man got out of the vehicle and observed as working. He did not say anything. Nor did he call the regimental commander to meet him.” Subsequently, that person drove away. “I did not know which Angkar he represented.”
At this point, the President adjourned the hearing for a break.
Visits by Khieu Samphan and Kingfather Sihanouk
After the lunch break, the floor was given again to the Deputy Co-Prosecutor Dale Lysak. Mr. Lysak referred back to the incident when a person stepped out of a car, observed the workers and left again. He asked whether Ta Val had told him who this person was. The witness replied that Ta Val had told him at the time that it was Khieu Samphan, but that he did not recognize him at the time. “I have seen Mr. Khieu Samphan, but he is small built, different from the person I saw at the time, who was large-built”. Mr. Lysak then asked whether King Sihanouk came to visit the worksite, which the witness denied. Mr. Lysak asked whether he remembered seeing King Sihanouk when he came to Phnom Srok or Preah Net Preah in late 1976. The witness replied that he did not see Sihanouk then.
This triggered Mr. Lysak to refer to the witness’s DC-Cam interview, during which the witness had stated that Khieu Samphan and Samdech came to visit Kok Romcheck dam.[10] Later, according to this statement, Khieu Samphan came on his own: “I knew clearly Khieu Samphan”. When asked today when and where the Kingfather visited, the witness replied that Samdech Sihanouk had not visited Kok Romcheck.
“He came in a vehicle and he left the vehicle on a main road. After that, he went to Prey Mouan.” The Kingfather did not go to the field but stood on the road. “He was away from the dam site.” Moreover, “When the king visited this place, I was invited to welcome the Kingfather.” Explaining further, he stated that “I was the only one in the unit who was told that I had to go and welcome the king.”
This prompted Mr. Lysak to refer to one of the witness’s interview, in which he had described that when preparing for Samdech Sihanouk’s visit, those people who were weak and skinny and those women who did not have any shoes were sent away.[11] Mr. Lysak asked whether this prompted the witness’s memory and whether he had received orders. Thw witness replied: “Upon my arrival, I noticed that those who welcomed the Kingfather were wearing black clothes from the East. And I have no idea where the skinny and the sick had been sent to. […] I was doubtful at the time, since I did not see the sick and the skinny people.”
Taking the examination back to the incident during which he had seen someone stepping out of a car, Mr. Lysak asked when this took place in relation to when he saw the Kingfather visiting the place. The witness replied that it was in April. It was within the fifth month of the lunar calendar. “I saw a person getting out of a car, but I did not recognize him. Later I was told by Ta Val that that person was Khieu Samphan.” He further remembered: “One day before I entered the courtroom, I realized that the person I saw back then was not Khieu Samphan, since that person had a large build.” In contrast, the person who he saw at the dam site “was over 1.70 meters or perhaps 1.80 meters.” Thus, “Khieu Samphan nowadays is not quite tall, and the person I saw back then was tall, very tall.”
When asked about details, the witness stated that “last year I saw [Khieu Samphan], he was around 1.67 or 1.68 meters. He was not 1.70 meters relating to his height.” He saw him when he was invited to the courtroom in 2013, he said, if he was not mistaken.
The witness denied being told that someone would visit the worksite when the incident occurred. Asked how he knew that that person was a “high ranking cadre”, the witness replied that that person “came in a vehicle. At the time, ordinary people did not enjoy that kind of luxury.” He could not remember what kind of vehicle that person drove. After standing next to the car, the person got into the car again, before he left for Phnom Srok. The witness denied that the person was standing on the embankment. He was standing on the road.
Mr. Lysak referred to the witness’s DC-Cam interview, in which he had testified that “He stood on the embankment and watched.”[12] The place where he was standing was around two kilometers away from where the workers carried earth. The witness walked around 250 away from him. Mr. Lysak asked how he knew how tall the person was exactly, when the closest he got to that person was 250 meters. The witness replied that he saw that the person was taller than 1.70 meters, but less than 1.80.
Mr. Lysak further inquired about a meeting during which the plans for building Trapeang Thma Dam were developed.[13] “Did you participate, sir, in any meeting, during which the plans […] were discussed?” The witness denied this and said that he was assigned to build the roads at the worksite. Mr. Lysak subsequently referred back to the witness’s statement, in which he had testified about a meeting that was attended by both the Sector and Zone committee.[14] The witness replied that a meeting took place at Svay Sisophon at the political school during work assignments to the regimental commanders and chiefs of sector 5 mobile units were given. The place is “now the party’s office”.
He did not know the people at the meeting. “I heard they came from the Zone level, so I was rather afraid of them”. He only knew Ta Val and Ta Hoen, who chaired the meeting together. This meeting took place after building the road. Ta Val gave him the instructions to build that road. “However, I did not know from which level he received the instructions.”
Mr. Lysak then turned to the topic of a road that was supposed to be built to Thailand. The witness had testified that someone had said that the Central Committee had given instructions to build that road. [15]
The witness now denied that this refreshed his memory and said that he only received instructions from Ta Val. As for the dam, he did not know whether Ta Val received instructions from the higher level. It was his personal conclusion that Ta Val would not have instructed them to build the dam if he had not received instructions from the Central Committee.
This prompted Mr. Lysak to refer to his DC-Cam interview. Here, he had indicated that the Central Committee changed the plan from building the road to building the dam.[16] He had stated that he heard directly how Ta Hoeng received instructions from the Central Committee. The witness denied remembering any of this.
He saw Ta Hoeng once every two months. Ta Hoeng’s office was located at Svay. During the regime, it was referred to as the political school. He could not recall which month the workers started working at Trapeang Thma. It was “in the month after the harvest season”, which made it likely to have been in January or February according to the witness. He confirmed that it was in 1977.
Before the arrival of the workforce, he was there for about a fortnight. He was working with them for around two months before being assigned to fish. There were around 6,500 workers at Trapeang Thma. Later on, four districts sent their workers to the worksite. The 6,500 workers belonged to the sector mobile unit. The sector mobile forces worked there for almost a month, before the supplementary forces arrived.
He was in charge of the mobile unit workers in charge. However, there was a battlefield commander for each unit. The witness himself was in overall charge and not in charge of a specific unit. Ta Val had the authority to supervise all the mobile unit forces.
The workers, according to the witness, were mostly 17 April People. The number of New People and Base People in the sector mobile was roughly equal. He did not “have the full knowledge” about the work quota. Some work forces had to work during the day and afternoon, while other work forces had to only work in the morning and in the afternoon of the following day.
Referring to the witness’s DC-Cam interview, Mr. Lysak asked whether the work quota was three cubic meters per day as he had indicated in his interview.[17] The witness replied that some workers received the work quota of three cubic meters. If a worker finished his work quota at 11 am already, they could rest during the afternoon, while others continued working even after having finished their work quotas. He did not see anyone working at night time. “No night shift.” He was not sure whether other units would work during the night time.
At this point, Nuon Chea Defense Counsel Victor Koppe observed that the Khmer language did not make a difference between evening and night time. Mr. Lysak stated that he would keep this in mind when asking his following questions.
Mr. Lysak proceeded to ask what the work quotas were at the worksites Kambor and Kok Romchek, since the witness had said earlier today that they differed to the one at Trapeang Thma Dam. The witness replied that the work conditions were different. Three cubic meters per day was not set by Angkar, but it depended on the unit leaders.
Mr. Lysak seemed to doubt the answer given by the witness: “Mr. Witness, are you telling this court that each unit was free to decide itself on its own quota? Is that what your testimony is? That work units could decide themselves what their daily quota of work was?”. The witness answered that “the unit would decide how to achieve the quota.” They were able to achieve the quotas and could rest.
In his statement, he had said that the Region Committee determined the work quota.[18] The witness stated now that the region committee did not decide the work quota. “It was the chiefs of the regiments who decided the three cubic meters of soil per day.” It was considered a “hot measure” so that workers could finish before the Khmer New Year.
At this point, the President adjourned the hearing for a break.
Work Conditions
After the break, the floor was given to the Deputy Co-Prosecutor. Mr. Lysak turned back to the topic of work conditions and said that the witness had testified that when the time to complete a dam was shortened, work conditions became harder. Mr. Lysak inquired what happened to those commanders and people who were not able to finish on time. The witness replied that they had to complete the work plan before New Year at Kambor worksite, which they were able to do. “They celebrated the Khmer New Year.”
Mr. Lysak inquired what the witness had meant in his previous statement when saying that “it was impossible” when not being able to finish the work assignment.[19] They were not able to accomplish the dam site of 18 meters before New Year. Thus, the time line was extended.
Mr. Lysak asked whether it was correct that the work at Kok Romchek started after the one at Kambor was finished, which the witness confirmed. Kok Romchek was completed in August or September of the same year.
Mr. Lysak then asked who it was who told him when Trapeang Thma was expected to be completed. The witness replied that “No one told us. Nothing was mentioned about the time line. I was only referring to Kambor dam site.” Trapeang Thma Dam did not have any time line. Mr. Lysak inquired whether it was therefore the witness’s testimony that they could have taken as much time as they wanted to finish the Trapeang Thma Dam, to which the witness responded that: “No timeline was set, since Trapeang Thma Dam was a large worksite.” Mr. Lysak inquired whether Trapeang Thma Dam was considered a “hot battlefield”, which the witness denied. “It was only Kambor worksite which was considered a hot battlefield.”
Mr. Lysak read out an excerpt of the Revolutionary Youth Magazine that had been presented to him earlier.[20] Mr. Lysak asked whether this refreshed his memory 1977 work plan that specified when the Trapeang Thma dam was to be completed, which the witness denied.
In his statement, the witness had indicated that details were provided about the dam. [21] Mr. Lysak inquired whether these details were not part of a work plan. The witness replied that he never came across a work plan. “I worked with Ta Val and he never said about the work plan form the center. I have just heard [about it] now.” Mr. Lysak asked who made the decision about height and width of the dam, to which the witness replied that Ta Hoeng made the decisions that were passed onto him by Ta Val. He did not know where the instructions came from. The instructions were given to him orally. “The six of us were invited over to his house”, where he was informed about the plan to construction Trapeang Thma. There was no written instruction sent to him.
Commanders of regiments would report daily on the completion of the work. He did not know how the commanders of regiments reported to Ta Val. “Every evening, commanders of regiments would go to see Ta Val and make the report. I do not know how they made the report.” He further recounted that “In each group, if there were weak workers or those who could not complete the work quota, the workers would be sent to the hospital for rehabilitation until the person got better and then they were returned to the worksite.” Mr. Lysak specified that he was asking about so-called “lazy people” and wanted to know whether there were any Special Case Units. The witness stated that this special unit was the “gathering of those people from the hospital”. It was called the Special Case Unit, because they were sent to the hospital for a check-up. Workers who violated the regulations or who committed moral misconduct would be refashioned by their respective unit. “They would be reprimanded once and twice, and after a maximum of three times, and if they could not re-fashioned, they would be arranged to be married amongst themselves. […] Of course no physical abuse was conducted. They would be re-fashioned for a maximum of three times.” Mr. Lysak asked whether he understood it correctly that if someone could not be re-educated, they would be married. The witness clarified that he referred to those who committed moral misconduct. “If they committed moral misconduct and they could not be re-fashioned within three strikes, they would be married amongst themselves”. The wedding would be held in their respective work unit
Mr. Lysak referred to one of the witness’s OCIJ statements, in which he had said that people would be arrested if they were lazy at work and sent back to their cooperatives.[22] Mr. Lysak wanted to know in what circumstances someone was arrested and who had the authority to make these arrests. The witness replied that “there was no physical arrest. Where the workers could not be re-fashioned, they would be sent back to their respective cooperatives.”
Mr. Lysak the inquired about the arrests of students and intellectuals.
The witness recounted that
At that time, there were some intellectuals who were working at the work site and who belonged to the Sector Mobile Unit. They initiated some plans to build a university in Svay Sisophon, so they made such a demand for the formation of a university. The upper echelon then made a decision to call the intellectuals to a meeting to discuss the formation of a university. And I did not know what Ta Val and Ta Hoeun knew about that situation. Ta Val then told me not to allow those students and intellectuals to attend the meetings. If they wanted a certificate, they should strive working hard. […], because that was the actual output. Because if they were to attend a meeting, he would not know where they were would be sent to. […] Later on, I saw a vehicle that belonged to the Northwest Zone. It was actually a former cargo vehicle with an iron cage. They came to transport those students and intellectuals to attend a meeting to discuss the creation of the university […]. I did not ask my [workers] to attend the workers. […] None workers from my unit went.” However, he did not know who sent the vehicle, but only knew that they were soldiers from the zone.
Mr. Lysak asked why the witness believed that the people who got onto the truck would die.[23] The witness replied that he did not trust this and that they would surely not be allowed to open a university.
Mr. Lysak then inquired about a report that was sent to the region secretary about this demand of creating a university and asked who sent this report. The witness stated that he did not know who sent this report. Asked whether he ever received instructions about who he should report to, the witness said that he was in no position to send reports. “My role was to focus on the practical work on the site […]. I did not have anything to do with a report.”
Mr. Lysak inquired whether there were any differences of food rations between those who came from the cooperatives and those who were in mobile units. The witness replied that each worker received three cans of rice per day. They had two meals a day, since they did not have time for three meals a day, although the ration was three cans of rice per day. For the cooperative units, they had their separate rations. Mr. Lysak asked why they did not have time to have three meals. The witness replied that this was due to the limited resources of water and fire wood.
Mr. Lysak asked how he knew that some workers had gruel.[24] The witness replied that he did not know about the rations of other sections but that he sometimes saw them eating watery gruel. He did not know how the sector obtained rice. Mr. Lysak asked whether the only place where rice was grown were the districts and that the rice came consequently from the same cooperatives. The witness replied that the sector mobile unit force were considered working harder and received three cans of rice per day. The witness replied that he did not know where they got the rice from.
Mr. Lysak asked whether he was not working equally hard during those periods. The witness replied that the district mobile unit could only achieve the work quota per unit based on the number of people, while their sector mobile unit set individual work quotas of three cubic meters a day.
Mr. Lysak asked whether the witnesses knew who was responsible for allocating the rice supplies between zone, sector and cooperatives, which the witness denied. Mr. Lysak asked whether there were any periods of food shortages in Phnom Srok district, during which food rations had to be reduced. The witness denied knowledge of food shortages.
Mr. Lysak read an excerpt of a weekly report that discussed food shortages of 21 May 1977.[25] This report stated that the ration of three tins should be reduced to two tins. Mr. Lysak inquired “who was the Angkar” who set the ration of three tins of rice per person. The witness replied that the ration stayed the same at his work site. He did not know who set the rations.
At this point, the President adjourned the hearing. It will resume tomorrow morning at 9 am.
[1] See E319/7/3. [2] Karacic, ICTY, 26 May 2009 and ECtHR Predo and others v. Italy, 1984.
[3]E3/9094, at 00734039-303 (KH), 00728647-748(FR), 001123611-12 (EN).
[4]E3/9483, answer 1.
[5] E3/9094, at 00734049 (KH), 00728654 (EN), 01123618 (FR).
[6]E39094, at 00734044 (KH), 00728651 (EN), 00123615 (FR). [7]E3/9094, at 00734050 (KH), 00728655 (EN), 01123619 (FR). [8]E3/1783, at 00659260 (KH) 00498181 (EN). [9] See E3/77. [10]E3/9094, at 00734078-79 (KH), 00728675-76 (EN), 01123637-37 (FR). [11]E3/9094, at 00734079-80 (KH), 00728676-77 (EN), 01123638-39 (FR). [12]E3/9094, at 00734082 (KH), 00728678 (EN) 01123640 (FR). [13] E3/9094, at 00734081 (KH), 00728677-78 (EN), 01123640. [14]E3/9504, question 1. [15]E3/9094, at 00734059-61 (KH), 00728662-63 (EN), 01123625-26 (FR). [16]E3/9094, at 00734065 (KH), 00728662-63 (EN), 001123636-39 (FR). [17] E3/9094, at 70-71 (KH) 00728670 (EN), 01123632-33 (FR), [18] E3/9094, at 00728670 (EN), 01123632 (FR) [19] E3/9094, at 00734050, 00728655 (EN) 01123619 (FR) [20] Revolutionary Youth E3/771, at 00376344 (KH)., 00509686 (EN), 00590045 (FR). [21] E3/9094, at 00734066 (KH), 00728667 (EN), 01123629 (FR). [22] E3/9567, at answer 52. [23]E3/9094, 00734084 , 00728679-80 (EN(, 01123641 (FR). [24] E3/9483, at answer 1. [25] E3/178, at 00275597 (KH), 00342721 (EN), 00623318-19 (FR).Featured Image: Witness (Source: Flickr ECCC)