Today, on December 02 2015, one witness and one Civil Party delivered their testimonies. The witness was questioned anonymously for reasons of confidentiality. This was the third day of his testimony and therefore mostly focused on issues that had already been mentioned on Monday and Tuesday, including an alleged secret meeting to plan a rebellion again the Khmer Rouge leadership and an incident where Khieu Samphan might have visited the Trapeang Thma worksite. The witness denied any knowledge about rebellion plans, which led Nuon Chea Defense Counsel Victor Koppe to ask whether the witness was scared to testify. The Civil Party testified on the treatment of ethnic Vietnamese and the killing of his wife, children and mother-in-law as well as six other . He was the first Civil Party to give testimony in the segment on the treatment of the Vietnamese.
Plans to Rebel
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 floor was then given to the Nuon Chea Defense Team
Victor Koppe started his line of questioning by reading out a quote again that he had read out yesterday afternoon and asked whether he remembered having said this. The witness replied that this was “something that I discussed outside the topic of the Trapeang Thma worksite” and it was something that he mentioned in 1982. This knowledge was not available to him in 1978 or 1979. He was not aware of this matter at Trapeang Thma.
This prompted Mr. Koppe to read out an excerpt of the witness’s DC-Cam statement. Here, he had talked about a meeting with Im Chaem before the Vietnamese entered, during which they had discussed the “betrayal” of several cadres. Ta Rin had chaired the meeting. Since Ta Rin had been executed in 1978, this meeting must have taken place prior to 1978 and not in 1982 as the witness stated. The witness insisted that he knew this in 1982 and not before. He denied having such a meeting in Svay. “I was with the fishing unit and I was far from where the meeting convened.” He learned about the content by those who attended it. When Mr. Koppe read out another excerpt in which he seemed to indicate that he had attended the meeting, the witness repeated that only high ranking cadres attended that meeting and that he did not know Im Chaem by then. The witness said that the Written Record of Interview made an error. “I was with the fishing unit at the Tonle Sap and could not attend the meeting.”
Mr. Koppe moved on and asked what the witness meant with “betrayal”. The witness said that he did not know what these people had done, but only that they had fled. Mr. Koppe asked what the relationship was between Sao Phim and Ros Nhim alias Mol Sambath. The witness stated that he did not know. Asked about the relationship to their children, he said that he had heard that Sao Phim had a daughter and Mol Sambath had a son who they wanted to get married. He could not recall which year this was – it might have been 1977 or 1978. The rumor was that “these two people wanted to become in-laws”.
Mr. Koppe moved on and asked whether there was any special relationship between the East Zone and the Northwest Zone. The witness said that he did not know.
This prompted Mr. Koppe to read an excerpt of a witness who had also held a position at Trapeang Thma Dam and had testified in front of the court. This witness had said that the friendship between the Northwest Zone and the East Zone was to “crush the Southwest” in order to re-establish the revolution. When Mr. Koppe asked for a reaction to this, the witness said that he did not know anything about this.
Mr. Koppe requested leave to show a photograph of the witness Lat Suy to the witness, which was granted. The witness did not recognize the person.
Mr. Koppe then referred to another witness’s statement – a previous Northwest Zone cadre from the transportation section – who had indicated that four different groups of Khmer Rouge existed, one of which attempted to rebel. The witness replied that he did not know how to explain this, since he was “not involved in the political sphere.”
Mr. Koppe then referred to the statement of a Northwest Zone chairman of economics and transport who had testified on a plan to fight against Pol Pot. This person had said that the plan was leaked, which resulted in the arrest of cadres. He had also said that it was said that if nothing was done against the Northwest Zone cadres, they would revolt like the East Zone. Asked about his reaction, the witness reiterated that he was not involved in politics.
Mr. Koppe then referred to a statement given by Sambath (2-TCW-959). Before he could continue with his question, Mr. Lysak corrected the previous characterization of the witness as chairman of logistics. He clarified that the witness had been chairman of logistics before 1975 and had been working in a fishing unit who had said that he heard these rumors after 1979.
Mr. Koppe continued his line of questioning by saying that Sambath, a former head of hospital in Battambang, had talked about a meeting to overthrow Pol Pot. In this meeting, Ros Nhim had said that secrecy was mandatory, as anyone who was involved would be killed if the plan was leaked. The witness also talked about the storage of food and equipment to assist troops within Northwest Zone to attack Pol Pot and others. Mr. Koppe asked whether this was something the witness had heard of, which the witness denied.
Mr. Koppe referred to a report May 29 1977 that covered the period of April 04 1977 until April 29 1977 and that described the “enemy situation”. This report indicated that 25 Khmer Rouge cadres had to be evacuated and one cadre had been killed in the Northwest Zone. The witness responded that he had not heard of this.
Mr. Koppe then pointed to to a Weekly report of the Sector 5 Committee of May 21 1977 which mentioned the hiding of rice in Phnom Srok and Preah Net Preah. Mr. Koppe inquired whether Ta Val had never talked about the hiding of rice in order to feed the rebellion troops.
Returning to a meeting chaired by Ta Val and Ta Hoeng in which a witness had testified that today’s witness had been present, which today’s witness denied.
Moreover, the witness that testified that there had been a secret meeting in Phnom Kang Khleng in which today’s witness was present. Mr. Koppe asked whether the witness knew why someone would say in a closed session that today’s witness had participated in a meeting. At this point, Mr. Lysak objected, since he claimed that this was a speculative question. The objection was upheld.
Mr. Koppe asked whether the witness knew a female cadre called Mao who worked at Trapeang Thma worksite. The witness replied that he did not know her.
Mr. Koppe said that it was difficult for him to understand that the witness did not know about any plans to rebel against Pol Pot and said that he therefore had to ask the following question: “Are you scared to answer questions from me?” Mr. Lysak rose to his feet again and objected on the basis that Mr. Koppe had presented it as if this secret plan was an undisputable fact, while it was actually only based on “S-21 confessions and gossip”.
Mr. Koppe replied that he “did so much my best not to mention any S-21” The President stated that “from [the witness’s] behavior I don’t think he is afraid or fearful” and that at the ECCC maybe the counsel was also not aware of all development. “I am not aware of any development or progress in other sections” aside from the developments in the Trial Chamber. Mr. Koppe should therefore move on.
Mr. Koppe said that if he was in the position of the witness, he certainly would be afraid. If the question was forbidden, he would request a formal ruling of the whole chamber. The President instructed him to go on to ask the relevant questions related to facts. Mr. Koppe said that the President had ignored his request, so he repeated his question to the witness: “Are you scared?”
The witness replied that he was not scared. He said that he was only involved in the tasks of Trapeang Thma worksite. If investigators included the informal conversations, he did not know how to respond. With this, Mr. Koppe finished his line of questioning.
At this point, the President adjourned the hearing for a break.
Time frame to finish the dams
After the break, the floor was given to the Defense Team for Khieu Samphan. International Defense Counsel Anta Guissé started her line of questioning by inquiring about the Kambor dam site and asked whether they had given a set time frame for completing the work, which the witness confirmed. He said that they were given four months to complete the dam. It had to be completed before Khmer New Year. However, they were not forced to comply with this time line. Instead, they were committed to do so. Angkar had set forth a four-month time frame, but since it overlapped with Khmer New Year, Ta Val asked whether it was possible to complete it in three. Ta Val asked the work forces, and they gave him feedback that it was possible to complete the worksite before Khmer New Year.
Ms. Guissé said that the witness had testified on Monday that the reason for the commanders having said it was possible to finish it within three months was to be promoted. She asked whether he remembered any names of these commanders. The witness replied that “there was no arrangement for anyone to be promoted. The unit leaders themselves committed to the work completion before the schedule. There was no formal promotion.”
Ms. Guissé then turned to Kok Romchek and asked whether she had understood him correctly that the work started after the other dam was completed. The witness responded that it started around a month after the work at the other dam had been started, but that the work there had not been completed yet.
Ms. Guissé asked whether it was correct that they started in February. The witness replied that he did not know the month but that the water had receded completely. The dam site was complete in August or September of that year, since there was no urgent need to complete it beforehand. Ms. Guissé asked whether it was therefore correct that the construction for Kok Romchek took longer than the first dam, which the witness confirmed.
Ms. Guissé further inquired about tractors and machines that he had mentioned yesterday. She asked who put them at their disposal. The witness replied that he did not know where exactly the three machines that were present there came from exactly, but that Angkar brought in this equipment. Since they were only 4,000 workers for a large dam, their work was supplemented with certain machines.
Ms. Guissé asked whether he had specific information whether the machines came from the sectors or zones. The witness replied that they had been informed that Angkar would provide them with a few Sunni machines, which indeed happened later. However, it was not said where specifically these machines came from.
Visit of a high-ranking cadre
Ms. Guissé turned to the visit of a high ranking cadre who was Khieu Samphan according to Ta Val. Ms. Guissé asked whether he remembered at what distance from Phnom Srok he saw this vehicle. The witness replied that the vehicle was “far from Phnom Srok” and that the distance between Kok Romchek and Phnom Srok was large. There was a road leading to Phnom Srok. He was around 200 meters away from that vehicle. He saw only one person who “looked from the West and to the East from time to time.” Later, the car was “heading to Phnom Srok.” Later, Ta Val told him that this had been Khieu Samphan. “When I was invited to attend the hearing, at the time I was in the public gallery, I noticed that the person I saw here is Khieu Samphan and the individual I saw back then was different from this person. At the time, Ta Val told me the person out of the vehicle was Khieu Samphan. […] In fact, the person was not Khieu Samphan.”
Ms. Guissé asked whether it was correct that Ta Val only told him after the vehicle left that the person was Khieu Samphan, which the witness confirmed. Ms. Guissé asked where Ta Val came from when he told the witness that it had been Khieu Samphan. The witness replied that he had been at the worksite observing the work, “quite away from the car.” He was on a motorbike coming to the witness and asked him whether he had seen the vehicle. At that time, the car had already left. There had not been any prior information about the visit.
Ms. Guissé asked whether Ta Val generally went around on a motorbike on the worksite, which the witness confirmed. “He used a motorbike wherever he went.” Ta Val had been around 200 meters away from the vehicle.
Ms. Guissé asked whether he saw other people in the car, even if they did not get out of the car. The witness replied that he could not see clearly the physical appearance of those in the car but could only see their heads. Ms. Guissé then asked whether he remembered whether the person who got out of the car got out of the passenger’s side or driver’s side. The witness replied that he did not know this: “since it was not my task, I did not pay close attention.”
Ms. Guissé then asked whether he remembered when he first saw Chiel at his work. The witness replied that he saw him the first time in Svay area when he collected diesel fuel. He did not go to contact him personally. He was told that there was a person named Chiel. Later, he could see Chiel’s appearance clearly when Chiel came to arrest Man. Ms. Guissé asked which unit the witness belonged to when he collected the diesel fuel. The witness replied that he was within the fishing unit. The fishing unit was under the mobile forces.
Ms. Guissé then inquired about the arrest of Man. The witness replied that they “came from the place where [they] drank palm juice”, since they wanted to drink it before they would die. There was a car with Ta Chiel inside. They were asked to board the vehicle. He was about to get into the vehicle when a soldier pushed him away. Only Man was pushed into the car. The witness felt onto the ground and fainted. He became conscious at 13.30 in a hospital. The car was white.
Ta Chiel had been arrested in the Southwest when he arrested “all kinds of people.” Ms. Guissé asked whether he witnessed other arrests than the one of Ta Man. He replied that he had not. Ms. Guissé asked what he based his statement on that Ta Chiel had arrested “all kinds of people.” The witness replied that Ta Chiel made the arrests. He stated that “chiefs within the regiment down to battalions” were to be arrested. Some people fled.
He heard people say that the deputy of Ta Hoeng was Ta Chiel, but he was not sure at the time.
Ms. Guissé then asked whether Ta Chiel’s function as a deputy was related to his family ties. The witness could not answer this question.
He learned about the information by others. There was a meeting that was held together by Ta Rin and Im Chaem. The meeting was held amongst the chiefs of cooperatives and village chiefs.
Ms. Guissé asked whether he remembered the date of when this meeting occurred. The witness could not, but said that he was at the fishing unit at the time. When he transported the fermented fish to the dam site, he would be given some information. However, he was never invited to the meeting.
Ms. Guissé then turned to the interviews themselves and asked whether he remembered being recorded during the interviews. The witness could not recall. “Some investigators said they were students and they told me that they saw the photographs of me at the court.” On some other occasions, there were foreigners “with fair complexion”, but he did not know whether there was any audio recording.
Ms. Guissé asked leave to give a copy of the record of the DC-Cam statement to the witness, which was granted. Ms. Guissé asked whether he recalled if the DC-Cam warned him that he would be recorded, which the witness confirmed. “Yes, the interview was audio recorded, but I did not know as to when the audio recording stopped.” Ms. Guissé pointed to the first page of this interview, which mentioned the duration of the interview. She asked whether it had indeed lasted 2.5 hours. He replied that it was a long interview, but could not remember the exact duration. “I was interviewed few times after that”. At this point, Ms. Guissé finished her examination.
Mr. Koppe took the floor and said that they still had not received the photographs that they had requested yesterday. Mr. Lysak stated that they were still waiting for authorization by the Co-Investigating Judge.
The President thanked the witness and dismissed him. He announced that 2-TCCP-300 would be heard next. He instructed the court officer to usher in the new civil party.
Civil Party testimony
The 73 year old Civil Party Prak Doeun was born in Kampong Preah village, Chhnok Trou Commune, Boribo District, Kampong Chhnang Province where he also currently resides. He is a member of the pagoda committee. He had two children from his previous marriage and five from his current one, but two of them deceased already. He was interviewed about the torture inflicted upon him during the Khmer Rouge regime.
The floor was given to the Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyers. International Lead Co-Lawyer Marie Guiraud handed over to Civil Party lawyer Lyma Nguyen.
She asked where he resided before April 1975. He replied that he was evacuated from his birth village to Pech Changvar and was transferred later again, where he was separated from his children and wife. After he was separated from his wife and children, he was sent to Ta Mov Island.
Ms. Nguyen then asked when he got married with his first wife. He replied that he married her in 1966 when he was 18 years old. He married and resided in the same native village. Her name was Bou Samban. She was ethnic Vietnamese and born in the same village as him. She spoke fluent Khmer. She also spoke Vietnamese, but did not use it. She only spoke Vietnamese and French. She was the only child in her family. Her facial figure was Khmer, but she had a lighter complexion. The mother was ethnically Vietnamese, but her father was half-Chinese. He did not know where her parents were born. When her parents spoke Khmer, they spoke with a “severe accent”. The mother had a stronger accent than the father. Her family followed Vietnamese traditions. During Chinese New Year, they celebrated it according to their culture. They did not engage in Buddhist practices. His and her family side got along well. His wife did not suffer discrimination and “we were well received.” In 1975, his mother-in-law went with him.
Turning to the issue of children, Ms. Nguyen asked how many girls and boys they had. They had five daughters and one son. When she asked whether all these children were with his Vietnamese wife, Mr. Koppe objected and stated that he objected to the term “Vietnamese wife”, since she had Khmer nationality. Ms. Nguyen replied that she was referring to ethnicity and not nationality. Mr. Doeun confirmed her question. However, when the Khmer Rouge gained control, they were dispersed into different cooperatives. Children were put in a separate unit.
After the break, the President announced that Claudia Fenz would be replaced by Martin Karopkin due to health reasons until she recovered.
The floor was then given to Mr. Nguyen. She asked how old Mr. Doeun’s oldest daughter was in 1975. He replied that his first child’s name is Phao Chiem, the second was 12 years old, the third child was called Pao Liem and was 10 years old, and the fourth child was called Phao Kiem, female, eight years old, the fifth child was called Phao Oukheang and four years old, while the 6th, a male, was 1.5 years old.
Ms. Nguyen wanted to know whether he ever referred to any of his children by another name, which the Civil Party confirmed. He said that Mi Kabat and Mi Kapuk for some of his daughters. He called his fourth daughter, whose real name was Pao Kheam, Mi Kabat or Mi Kapuk during the Pol Pot regime. The Civil Party replied that he only used Mi Kabat or Mi Kapuk for one daughter. For other daughters and sons, he used the original names. Ms. Nguyen asked why he used another name during the Pol Pot regime. He explained that members of the children unit would have known that she was the daughter of the Vietnamese family. When she asked what would have happened if the real name would have been known, Mr. Koppe objected and said that invited speculation. The objection was overruled. The Civil Party stated that he was afraid that he would lose his daughter if he was using the original name. He was afraid that “she would have been killed.” He started using this name in mid-1976. Ms. Nguyen asked for clarification whether it was correct that the 1.5 year old child had not yet been born in 1975. The Civil Party replied that his son was born in late 1976.
Ms. Nguyen turned to the topic of evacuation and asked what village he was living in when he was evacuated.
Ms. Nguyen asked whether there was a mountain when he was relocated to Pech Changvar village. The Civil Party replied that this village was around 15 kilometers from a mountain. They were dispersed into different units next to the mountains. The husbands had to work in the field while women had to work in a fishing unit. They would meet once every fortnight. The mountain was named Kuc. They were living together in Pech Changvar village, but he was relocated to another village later and did not know where his wife then.
During the time that he could stay with his wife, he stayed there for a fortnight.
Ms. Nguyen inquired when he was transferred to Ta Mov Island. He replied that he did not know about the exact timing. He would go anywhere he was asked to go. Ms. Nguyen inquired whether his whole family was transferred to Ta Mov Island, which he denied. Three or four members of his family were sent to work in a fishing unit. Asked whether his family stayed in Pech Changvar Village when he was sent to Ta Mov Island, he recounted that one of his daughter was sent to a child unit, one of his daughters was sent to a training session and his son sent into a adolescent unit. The children were sent to a mobile unit, so the locations varied. “I was not sure where they were assigned to work”. After 15 days of relocation, his children would send him their whereabouts. He stayed on the island for one year and a half. The chiefs of his village were three men and one woman: Ta Ruo, Hum (who was responsible for the fishing unit), comrade Na, and Comrade Kuan (who was in charge of economics). One year after having been transferred to Ta Mov Island, he submitted a request to visit his family. “With the kind hard, the cadres granted the request that I asked my wife and my children to come and live on the island.” Thus, they could live together on the island after 1.5 years. He confirmed that this was around the end of 1976.
When Ms. Nguyen asked whether the Khmer Rouge knew that he was married to an ethnically Vietnamese woman when they joined her, Mr. Koppe objected to the term Khmer Rouge, since this term was too broad. Ms. Nguyen rephrased the question. The Civil Party replied that “they knew” that his mother-in-law was Vietnamese, since she did have an accent. “Because of this, she was taken away and killed.”
Ms. Nguyen inquired whether the cadre said anything regarding the ethnicity of his wife. He replied that he was asked whether his wife was ethnically Vietnamese or Khmer Rouge. He told them that he told them the truth that his wife’s mother was ethnically Vietnamese. He did not understand “what they were thinking at the time.”
On the island
Turning to the composition of population on the island, Ms. Nguyen asked whether he could tell the court how many people were Khmer and how many people were Vietnamese on the island. He replied that there were seven married families on the island. Some Khmer men and women married Vietnamese men and women. They had married during the Sihanouk time. There were seven mixed couples. He did not know about the exact numbers of Khmer husbands who had married Vietnamese women.
Ms. Nguyen asked whether the ethnic Vietnamese were identified by the CPK cadre. Mr. Doeun replied that they were aware of the number of Vietnamese people in the families. Comrade Chum had said that the Khmer men married a Vietnamese woman. Ms. Nguyen asked whether there were any language tests to identify. He replied that reports were made. “They exchanged information about us for food”.
He heard that a Vietnamese person should be returned to Vietnam. However, his wife would stay with him. Ms. Nguyen asked whether there were any boats going from his island in the direction of Vietnam. “I saw they rounded up people and put [them] in a covered boat along the river. […] There were about 20 to 30 people on that boat. However, there were many branches from Tonle Sap and I did not know whether there were other boats leaving other branches of the river.”
He recognized only Comrade Em who said goodbye to him. “I knew for sure he was turning back to his country.”
The people on the boat “were all Vietnamese.” However, he was far away from the boat and only recognized one person on the boat, namely Comrade Em. His wife was not with him when he saw the boat.
Ms. Nguyen asked whether he was aware of any policy of the CPK towards the Vietnamese people. “There was one Vietnamese who was not sent at that time. Her name was An. Her parents had been sent but she remained in the cooperatives. The soldiers said that she should not speak Vietnamese at all and that she should speak only the Khmer language.” When she spoke Vietnamese, they called her to meet her, “pulled her by her hair” and beat her. Two days later, she was sent elsewhere and disappeared ever since.
Ms. Nguyen asked whether he was aware of any policy towards the Vietnamese. At this point, Mr. Koppe interjected and said that counsel had to be more specific regarding times and terms used. She had used the term Khmer Rouge again. Moreover, there was a “big difference” between the time prior to when the Vietnamese “massively invaded” Cambodia in 1977 and after. And lastly, Mr. Koppe argued that it was highly unlikely that the Civil Party could say anything important about the policy regarding the CPK, since he was only an ordinary citizen. Mr. Koppe held: “We’re in a section that deals with genocide, so it’s important that we’re very specific”
Ms. Nguyen asked whether they were reunited on the island for a year, so from December 1976 until December 1977. The Civil Party replied that he could not recall the exact month. “Because when I’m talking about [it] I’m thinking about my children who passed away.” She then proceeded to ask whether anything the CPK cadre had said caused him fear, he recounted that he heard an announcement that the “Vietnamese had infiltrated” the Khmer Rouge. Those Vietnamese who had been accused of infiltrating the ranks had all been sent back to Vietnam. He could not recall the exact words of the announcement. However, it was said that they had to be ready in the cooperative and he did not know whether they would be sent back.
Mr. Kong Sam Onn interjected and stated that Ms. Nguyen had actually misrepresented the Civil Party’s testimony, since she presented it as if he had heard this announcement on the radio broadcast, while he had actually heard cadres talking about it who had heard it on a radio broadcast.
Ms. Nguyen asked the Civil Party to clarify. He said that he had heard this announcement at night time. “I did not allow my wife to know about my feeling. I knew for sure that my wife would be sent back or that she would be taken away and killed. However, I did not tell my wife about what I heard. And later on, husbands and wives were taken away.”
Ms. Nguyen then asked about the last day that he saw his wife on Ta Mov Island. “I was thinking all the time that my wife would be separated from me.” They did not speak to anyone about this issue, since they were afraid of anyone overhearing their conversations. He further recounted that he thought that “it’s better if we die first and not the children first.”
At this point, Mr. Sam Onn interjected and sought the President’s advice to intervene when the Civil Party does not respond to the questions. The President advised the Civil Party to answer the questions. Ms. Nguyen said that her client had a very high blood pressure this morning. She said that it might be helpful to ask whether the Civil Party was in a position to continue his testimony.
The President asked Mr. Doeun whether he was able to answer questions or whether he needed a break. The Civil Party said that he was able to testify.
Ms. Nguyen subsequently asked what happened to his wife. Mr. Doeun could not answer the “no, they did not blame me, but they blamed the other cadres and blamed Samdech Sihanouk” for having given them a marriage certificate.
The other six families were assigned to work separately, “although the distance was not that far”. Some family members would work at the top of the field while others worked in the middle.
Asked whether he was separated from his wife in 1977, he confirmed it and said that they were separated for more than a year. When she asked whether he was permanently separated in late 1977, he stated that they worked at separate locations but could reunite at night.
Killing of seven families
Ms. Nguyen again repeated her question what happened on the last day that he saw her. Mr. Doeun said that the cadres “gathered all those families who either had a Vietnamese wife or a Vietnamese husband”, which totaled 7 families, but they were not tied up. They left at night time. When they travelled at night time, they stopped at one location. He asked whether they were allowed to rest. They answered that some of them would be allowed to stay there Tuol Roka, Melum. His wife’s group, they said, would be sent to plant vegetables. He wondered why they only called him, who had a Vietnamese wife, and asked one person to take the youngest child with him. This person said it was better if the child stayed with the mother. The group of people was taken away and, as he heard later, “were smashed.” He recounted: “the young children were thrown into the air and pierced with a bayonet.” Remembering how he felt, he told the Court that “I was shocked when I heard that.”
At the time, he almost lost consciousness. It was night time. They were walking along the road. When they were tired, they were allowed to rest for a few minutes or hours. They had no rice to eat. “But when they wanted us to walk on, they would wake us up.” After six or seven kilometers, he asked his comrades to allow taking some rest. There were two cadres: one female cadre of around 18 years and a male cadre of 14 years old. They neither had sticks nor scolded or beat them. There were two small children, one belonged to him, and the other one belonged to the other family.
Ms. Nguyen asked whether his mother-in-law was also with them, which the Civil Party confirmed. “During the time, there was my mother-in-law, my wife, one of my children and me.” During the journey, nothing happened to him and no accusation was made. “We were travelling and on some occasions we were so tired.”
They divided them into groups when they arrived “at the place where they wanted to kill us.” He was wondering why the Vietnamese men were not sent into his group. His wife was well-aware that she was in danger, while his mother-in-law did not know what would happen.
He confirmed that Vietnamese men and women were in one group, while the Cambodian men and women were in another. “My wife, with my little child, went into group together with other Vietnamese people. If the mother was Khmer, then the child would be allowed with the mother in the group of Khmer [people].”
When Ms. Nguyen asked what would happen to Vietnamese children the President intervened and stated that Ms. Nguyen should refrain from hypothetical questions. Ms. Guissé stated that she understood it that there were two children: an easier way would be to ask what happened to those two children. Ms. Nguyen asked what happened to the second child. Mr. Doeun answered that they “were thrown up into the air and killed with a bayonet.”
At this point, the President adjourned the hearing for a break.
Fate of his family members
At the beginning of the last session, Mr. Koppe requested clarification with regards to the Civil Party, since his testimony did not relate to the Closing Order. What was heard today were factual elements at a location that was not included in Closing Order. Hence, the question arose in what way this Civil Party should be testifying today and he asked whether they were “not going way too much into the details of the alleged events” instead of just hearing on harm suffered.
Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer Marie Guiraud said she wanted to make a motion to request more time to hear this Civil Party. As for Mr. Koppe’s remarks, she stated that the Chamber had decided to hear witnesses and Civil Parties on issues relevant to ascertain the truth. This testimony served to establish a policy. Thus, she requested Chamber to continue examining on all facts as they wished. Moreover, she requested an additional 20 minutes to hear this Civil Party, since they had started late today and the Civil Party had been tired.
Senior Assistant Prosecutor Vincent de Wilde stated that the defense should have raised objections as soon as names known. Regardless of this tarded objection, this testimony served to prove national policy.
Ms. Guissé replied to the request by the Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyers by saying that if additional time for Civil Party, the defense would also need more time.
After conferring with the bench, President gave the floor to Judge Jean-Marc Lavergne. Judge Lavergne stated that the objection was tardy, and would therefore not grant the objection. He argued that the Chamber considered this Civil Party to be important for determining a policy. As for additional time, the Chamber granted time until the end of this session for the Civil Party Lawyers and the Prosecution. If needed, the Defense Teams would be granted additional time tomorrow morning.
Ms. Nguyen resumed her line of questioning and inquired how many people were in the group. The Civil Party replied that his child was sent with his wife. Another child was with the Khmer group. Women who were Khmer were allowed to take their children with them. He could not talk to his wife, since they walked separately and were separated at their destination. He did not make a request to stay with his wife, but he made a request to have the child with him. The cadre “reassured me that I needed not to be worried about my child, because my child would be under care of other people”. The next morning, he learned that the Vietnamese were killed. “They did not use the term killed at the time, they used the term smashed”. Comrade Hum – the unit chief –told him. The cadre blamed him for having married a Vietnamese wife. He told him that the hands of the Vietnamese people were tied back. They were beaten into the grave, “where they were dug up”. They left the place around 6 or 7 pm and arrived around 3.30.
After the killing, he was put into a unit responsible for supervising women at the field. There was another man who got married with a Vietnamese woman who was with him. They were in a house for one week. “We were allowed to eat whatever other people ate.” After seven days, he resorted to normal rice. There was one incident that there was a Chinese person who was also sent away, since he had an accent.
Ms. Nguyen then turned to his other children and inquired what happened to his other five daughters. The first and second daughters were sent into a unit in a cooperative. The third was sent into a training session, while the fourth was sent into a children unit. “That child did not have anything to eat but morning glory. She did not have any medicine when she was sick. Perhaps twenty children died every die in her unit because of hunger.” Only two of his children survived. He was told that some of his daughters died in mobile units in cooperatives. The two daughters who survived did so because he secretly sent them dried fish every three or four days. He would sometimes cook beans at night time and send it to them.
Ms. Nguyen asked whether it was right that there were no longer any Vietnamese left on the island after this incident, which the Civil Party confirmed. With this, Ms. Nguyen finished her line of questioning.
International Senior Assistant Prosecutor Vincent De Wilde commenced his questioning. Mr. de Wilde asked when his parents-in-law settled in Cambodia. The Civil Party replied that he did not know the background of his wife’s parents. Mr. de Wilde then wanted to know whether they brought up their children according to Khmer traditions or Vietnamese traditions, or a mixture of both. The Civil Party replied that he allowed his children to go to school to learn the Khmer language, but they practiced the culture of his wife at home. During the Khmer Rouge regime, culture, clothes and traditions were banned.
Mr. de Wilde asked who executed the group, which Mr. Doeun did not know. He did not witness the killings. Mr. de Wilde then asked whether the two young people who accompanied them were cadres. The Civil Party replied that they were soldiers. Comrade Born was the executioner in the area. For example, if a woman committed moral misconduct, she would be sent to Comrade Born and this was “the end of her life.” Mr. Doeun confirmed that Born was known as being an executioner.
Mr. de Wilde then asked about the first attack by Vietnamese and wanted to know whether Mr. Doeun’s wife was killed before or after. At this point, Mr. Sam Onn interjected and stated that Mr. de Wilde in fact testified on the invasion of Vietnamese troops. The Co-Prosecutor should be more specific in his questions, since the invasion took place in a different region.
Mr. de Wilde then referred to two excerpts of the Civil Party’s testimony, in which he had referred to attacks by the Vietnamese and policy towards the Vietnamese. Mr. de Wilde asked whether this refreshed the Civil Party’s memory as for the timing when his wife and child were killed.
“Part of my memory was lost, because every night I dreamt of my wife and children. And for that, my health has deteriorated since. So I would like to apologize to the Chamber if I cannot recall what happened.” Mr. de Wilde repeated his question, but Mr. Doeun still did not comprehend it.
Mr. de Wilde moved on and asked whether the Civil Party himself had heard the announcement or heard cadres speaking about a radio broadcast. Mr. Doeun replied that he was asked whether any Vietnamese were in his group, which Mr. Doeun had denied.
Mr. de Wilde turned to the subject of marriage and inquired what the Civil Party knew about arranged marriages. Mr. Doeun replied that he was sent to cut trees to make tools for catching fish. There were cadres from the district and he was called to go with them. He had to meet them in the cooperative. “And I was thinking what I did wrong. Maybe I stole something and later on they learned about that” He went with them and helped them to build a table. They were given a piece of rice cake each. Next, “we learned that it was an arranged marriage ceremony.” Later on, they were asked to say some words. “I was feeling rather uncertain. I was a bit excited, a bit worried. I was asked to speak first.” He was told that Angkar arranged the wedding ceremony and that they should maintain the marriage. He subsequently asked a person how the wedding ceremony was arranged and he was told that they were asked whether they consented to the marriage. If not, they would be taken away and killed. There were 25 couples who got married in this ceremony. The cadres from the unit made the proposal. However, some made a proposal, but the majority of the couples were chosen by the cadres. Nobody knew beforehand who would be his or her future husband or wife. “Of course I did not have the opportunity to ask everyone around”, so he asked those who were situated close to him. Mr. de Wilde then inquired whether some of the people refused to get married, which the Civil Party denied. “Nobody dared to protest. […] They would only praise Angkar for organizing such a wedding.”
Mr. de Wilde asked whether they had to live together and consummate the marriage. Mr. Doeun replied that they were spied on in the first night to see whether they consummated their marriage. There were two couples who were caught not consummating their marriage then. He heard that they were not punished, but they were re-educated once. “They were advised by Angkar to consummate their marriage.” He did not know what happened to them later. After the couples spoke, the cadres made speeches saying that they had to follow Angkar’s directions. They asked whether they were satisfied with the arrangements. He attended the wedding ceremony but was not married himself. He married after the Vietnamese arrived.
At this point, the President concluded the session and stated that the Civil Party’s testimony would continue tomorrow morning at 9 am.
 E3/9094, at 00728699 (EN), 00734112 (KH), 01123659 (FR).  E3/9060, at 00733054 (KH), 01123699 (FR), 00728747 (EN).  E3/9443, at 00729899 (EN), person number 42 in DC-Cam report.  See 00947282 (KH), 00974761 (FR), 00970467 (EN)  E3/9580, at 00951906 (KH), 01004437 (FR), 00978422 (EN).  E3/4202, at 00757532 (EN), 00858342 (KH), 00849437 (FR).  E3/160, at 00143452 (EN), 00008497 (KH).  E3/178, ERNs were not available. Transcript, December 02 2015, at 11:27.  E3/9094, at 01123651 (FR), 00728691 (EN), 00734101 (KH).  E3/9094 , only in Khmer 00734031.  E301/9.1.1, paragraphs 2.13 and 2.15, and several paragraphs of the Closing Order, e.g. 1348. E3/4989, at 00891035 (FR), 00891032 (EN) 00556217 (KH) and 00891034 (EN), 0556218 (KH).
Featured Image: Civil Party Prak Doeun (ECCC: Flickr)