Hatred towards the Vietnamese
Today, February 2 2016, witness Sao Van concluded his testimony by giving further details on meetings that he attended and instructions issued by Ta Mok. Next, former Deputy Chief of Division 1 – Meas Voeun – took his stance. He talked about instructions to spare former Lon Nol officials, orders to let Vietnamese and Thai refugees pass once their status had been verified, as well as about fighting with Thai fisher boats and hatred towards the Vietnamese in general. Lastly, he gave evidence on a plan to “smash” all Vietnamese that had not left Cambodia, since they wanted to “cause trouble” to the Cambodian people.
Meetings
At the beginning of the session, the Trial Chamber Greffier confirmed the presence of all parties. Nuon Chea followed the hearing from the holding cell. He announced that witness Sao Van would finish his testimony today, after which 2-TCW-1008 will be heard.
The floor was then given to Nuon Chea Defense Counsel Victor Koppe. He referred to the witness’s testimony in front of the Supreme Court Chamber, in which he had talked about two meetings and had confirmed that he had been instructed at both meetings not to harm any former Lon Nol soldiers up to the rank of the colonel. He had also mentioned a speech of Khieu Samphan, which was broadcasted. In this speech, Khieu Samphan had instructed who to spare.[1] Mr. Koppe asked why he remembered Khieu Samphan’s speech when talking about the meetings. The witness replied by recounting the content of the speech. Mr. Koppe inquired whether he thought about Khieu Samphan’s speech during the meetings. He answered that the war had not ended yet. “I remember I listened to the radio […], I had to listen to it secretly, and I heard about the circulars issued to the cadres during war time that all cadres had to be vigilant with former servants.” Former servants were soldiers, former village chiefs, teachers and the like. The cadres had to be vigilant in case these former servants opposed the new regime. Mr. Koppe inquired whether there was a connection with his brother. Mr. Van answered that it was not only meant for his elder brother, but for servicemen in general.
He corrected his statement from yesterday, and clarified that the old circular to be vigilant about former servicemen was still in effect when his brother arrived in the village. As a result, his brother was detained and sent for re-education.
Mr. Koppe wanted to know whether the meeting in Takeo Provincial Town took place shortly after the liberation ay in 1975 and not in 1976. The witness insisted that it took place in 1976. He was in Sector 25 and made a trip to attend the meeting, which was held in the Southwest Zone. Ta Mok instructed each province to send cadres to attend the meeting. Mr. Koppe explained that he had asked this question, because another cadre, whom he knew, Pech Chim, had talked about a meeting at Takeo Provincial Town, during they had received instructions not to harm Lon Nol officials.[2] Pech Chim had indicated that the location of a meeting was behind a party office at the river bank. Mr. Koppe wanted to know whether Pech Chim talked about a separate meeting. The witness answered that he did not know whether Pech Chim attended the meeting at the time. However, there was a house to the West of the Psa Chha close to the meeting, in which Ta Mok resided. When Mr. Koppe asked whether he understood his testimony correctly that Chim referred to another meeting, Senior Assistant Prosecutor Dale Lysak objected and said this was a leading question, inviting the witness to speculate. Mr. Van answered that this was a separate meeting.
Mr. Koppe then turned to the meeting at Phnom Trael and sought more clarity as for the date that it took place. Mr. Koppe wanted to know whether someone had referred to a much bigger meeting in Phnom Penh of the 22 and 23 of May to celebrate the victory. He replied that he did not know about the meeting held in Phnom Penh.
Mr. Koppe referred to Ben Kiernan’s book and read an excerpt, in which Kiernan had referred to a Bangkok Post article, in which someone had said that they received an instruction not kill any former officials anymore in May 1975.[3] Mr. Koppe wanted to know whether it was possible that the meeting took place between 22 May and 28 May. Mr. Van answered that he could not recall the exact date. It might have been one or two months afterwards. Ta Mok invited all soldiers in Sector 13. These soldiers were from Srae Rae. Afterwards, they had the radio communication. Seven people of the former Lon Nol regime were to be executed.
Mr. Koppe asked whether Khieu Samphan’s speech might have been broadcasted on 26 February 1975.[4] He was responsible for Cheang Tong Commune when listening to the broadcast.
Mr. Koppe read out an excerpt of a speech that was dated 26 March 1975.[5] The speech mentioned that the high officials of the Lon Nol regime were opposed to the Cambodian people. The witness said that the speech was beyond his knowledge. The speech was given by Late Kingfather Norodom Sihanouk and mentioned several names of people who were to be punished. The witness had never heard of those names.
Treatment of the Vietnamese
Mr. Koppe turned to his next topic and inquired whether he ever heard about the mistreatment of Vietnamese people by the Lon Nol officials in Takeo Provincial Town. He answered that he did not know, since he was only an ordinary villager in Trapeang Tek Village after the coup d’état. Mr. Koppe asked whether he had heard about the killing at Dai Pram School in Takeo Provincial Town, which he denied. As for fights between Lon Nol groups and the Vietnamese, he could not remember. He only remembered that Ta Mok instructed them not to sell rice to the Vietnamese troops not to support them economically.
He did not know about any fighting after 1973.
Mr. Koppe then asked whether he had ever heard about the Khmer Sar or the Khmer Rumdoh. Mr. Van replied that he had never heard about these terms.
He had said that they were not supposed to “lean too much to the left” nor “lean too much to the right.”[6] Mr. Koppe wanted to know what this meant. He answered that the Revolutionary Flag stipulated this. If they assigned someone to work at 1 pm, for example, they would be considered to lean to the right or to the left. They should not be too strict for the work hours either. The “get rid” of tendencies to the right and to the left, they had to not have any personal attachment or property. If someone broke the plough, they could be seen as opposing the revolution.
Mr. Koppe then referred to Mr. Voeun’s interview, in which he had said that Ta Mok talked in a meeting for around half an hour, telling them “to be very careful” and that Ta Saom and Ta Muth were too cruel.[7] The witness said that “there was a yearly conference held” and Ta Mok mentioned that the cadres should engage in the production. The center and zone level were the only ones to harm people. Ta Mok told them that he had been told that people were afraid of Ta Saom and Ta Muth. Instead, you had to make people trust you and not make them be afraid of you. At this point, the President adjourned the hearing for a break.
Chan Chakrei
After the break, Mr. Koppe referred to the witness’s DC-Cam statement, in which he had spoken about someone called Chan Chakrei. Mr. Koppe wanted to know who this person was. The witness answered that he did not know Chan Chakrei. Mr. Koppe read out an excerpt of his interview, in which he had talked about the military commander Chan Chakrei from the East Zone who was arrested.[8] He said that he did not remember this and that a Yeay Bhor might have mentioned this. She had said that she had said that the East zone soldiers had a conflict with the parties. She mentioned it on the journey to Kampong Svay. He had also referred to Chan Raingsey, so Mr. Koppe wanted to know whether he referred to Norodom Chan Raingsey, which he confirmed. He had been stationed in Kampong Speu. With this, Mr. Koppe finished his line of questioning. The floor was granted to the Khieu Samphan Defense Team. International Defense Counsel Anta Guissé declared that they did not have any questions to this witness.
Oral submissions regarding OCP request to admit documents
The President thanked the witness and dismissed him. He then announced that the Chamber wanted to hear submissions regarding a request by the Co-Prosecution to admit six documents to the case file that should be used during the examination of witness 2-TCW-1008.[9]
Senior Assistant Prosecutor Vincent de Wilde explained that the Chamber had not yet ruled on five documents yet. Four of those documents were from witness 2-TCW-1008, and another interview from a Civil Party.[10] Since this witness would testify in front of the Court, Mr. de Wilde said that he did not expect this motion to pose any problems. The Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyers did not have any objection to this request.
Nuon Chea Defense Counsel said he did not have any objection with regards to the Written Record of Interview of the upcoming witness. However, he reminded the Chamber of the pending oral request that he had made last week to admit a DC-Cam statement and a Written Record of Interview of a witness relating to division 164.[11] He requested the Chamber to include these two documents in their ruling now, since he intended to use them with this witness. Judge Jean-Marc Lavergne asked for reasoning. Mr. Koppe replied that these Written Records of Interviews were of prima facie importance. Judge Lavergne said that this meant he seemed to request the Chamber to reverse its oral decision of last week that had rejected the application. He reminded counsel that applications had to be made in a timely manner and that the application had to be made in a timely manner.
Khieu Samphan Defense Counsel Ms. Guissé argued that when the Chamber decided to hear witnesses that had been identified in Case 003 and 004, the defense sometimes had to react to issues that came up that were not included in the closing order. She pointed out that this was difficult sometimes.
Judge Claudia Fenz requested Mr. Koppe to explain why he had not made the request earlier. He explained that the segment that had not been mentioned in the closing order. The subject itself was “brand new”, and since the chamber had decided to call Prak Sok in December, they had been under time pressure. They had stumbled across the witness’s Written Record of Interview two days before the testimony of Prum Sarat and had not filed an 87(4) request due to a lack of resources.
Mr. de Wilde said that they did not formerly object to the request by the Nuon Chea Defense Team, but he pointed out that requests would have to be made in a timely manner in the future.
After briefly conferring with the bench, the President announced that all requested documents – the ones requested by the Co-Prosecution and the ones requested by the Nuon Chea Defense Team – were admitted.
New Witness: Meas Voeun
The President then ordered to usher in the witness. Witness Meas Voeun was born in 1944 in Sre Klong Village, Phnom Sruoch District, Kampong Speu Province. The witness was then sworn in, since he is Christian. He was ordered to place his left hand on the bible and raise the right hand while declaring that “I solemnly declare that I shall tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”
The floor was then granted to the Nuon Chea Defense Team. He started his line of questioning by asking whether he was always a Christian, since he had compared his situation to the one of Duch.[12] Mr. Voeun replied that he became a Christian in 1993.
Mr. Koppe read an excerpt of the witness’s DC-Cam statement.[13] He had indicated that he had been known as serving the activities of the Khmer Rouge. Thus, his older brother had been taken away and killed – as had been his younger brother and his uncle – since he “had a tendency to the Khmer Rouge” between 1970 and 1975. He confirmed this statement and added that one of his cousins was also killed. He also had said that he was afraid of the Lon Nol intelligence agents. Mr. Koppe asked why this was the case. Mr. Voeun answered that he “went to the forest” while his older and younger siblings remained at home. Some people came to the village asking the villagers for rice. This led to the arrests of his siblings.
Mr. Koppe moved on to the attack on Phnom Penh in April 1975 that he had already testified on in Case 002 for four days in 2012.
Mr. Koppe said that the witness had talked about the attack and said that the East Zone divisions had been followed by the Southwest and Northwest Zone, finally reuniting together.[14] He answered that there were troops from the East, North and Southwest and “the special zones” who “joined hands” to attack Phnom Penh. Mr. Koppe wanted to know whether there were any clashes between the East Zone forces and the Southwest Zone forces, which the witness denied. Mr. Koppe wanted to know whether he knew if Lon Nol soldiers “raised the white flag” at some point, which the witness confirmed.
At this point, the President adjourned the hearing for a break.
Lon Nol soldiers
After the break, Mr. Koppe resumed his line of questioning and referred to the witness’s statement.[15] He asked whether anything happened to Lon Nol soldiers when he was in Kampot. The witness answered that he did not know that Lon Nol soldiers were already there, while he was assigned to repair railway trails. Mr. Koppe asked whether he himself or any other members of the division were involved in the execution of Lon Nol officials who had raised the white flag. Mr. Voeun denied this and said that “my soldiers were not engaged in the killings and executions, since there were no Lon Nol soldiers visible at that place.” Following up on this matter, Mr. Koppe asked whether he had ever heard about Lon Nol soldiers being executed after they had raised the white flag, which the witness also denied.
Mr. Koppe then referred to another one of the witness’s interviews and asked how he had received the instructions not to harm “Phnom Penh people.”[16] At this point, Mr. de Wilde objected if this question referred to the evacuation of Phnom Penh, since this had been dealt with in Case 002/01 and was not in the scope of this trial. Mr. Koppe explained that his follow-up question was whether he knew that Heng Samrin in the East Zone had similar instructions. The objection was overruled. The witness recounted that he received the order not to shoot people from the division. However, he did not know about the East Zone.
Mr. Koppe then asked to explain how he knew that Ta Mok was the commander of all three military branches – navy, army and air force- and therefore had more power than Son Sen on the battle field. Mr. de Wilde interjected and asked for the references, which Mr. Koppe gave.[17] The witness knew this, “since he was entitled to order my soldiers and the other soldiers had to receive his orders as well. And I do not know how broad his power was at the time.”
Divisions 164 and Division 1
Next, Mr. Koppe inquired whether it was correct that he was stationed for ten to twelve months in Kampot before moving to Koh Kong. The witness corrected this number to three or four months. He was stationed at Koh Kong for three years, before going to Preah Vihear. He said that he was in Kampot for a maximum of six months.
Mr. Koppe then turned to the work in Koh Kong and asked whether it was correct that he became the deputy commander of Division 1, which belonged to the West Zone and operated at the coast of Koh Kong. The witness confirmed that this was true. Mr. Koppe further inquired whether Division 1 was the “ground force” of the West Zone, which the witness also confirmed. Mr. Koppe wanted to know whether Division 1 reported to the chief of the West Zone, namely Chu Chet, also known as Ta Sy, and that Ta Soeun was the commander of Division 1. Mr. Voeun replied that he never made the report to Ta Sy, but to Ta Soeun instead. Mr. Koppe then inquired whether it was correct that there were also troops stationed that belonged to Division 164, which he confirmed.
Mr. Koppe asked whether the two Divisions 164 and Division 1 existed in Koh Kong. The witness answered that Division 1 was initially at Koh Kong, while Division 164 was initially stationed somewhere else. Mr. Koppe then wanted to know whether it was correct that both were equally powerful. The witness clarified that Division 164 was more powerful than the division from the zone. This prompted Mr. Koppe to refer to the witness’s statement, in which he seemingly suggested that both divisions were equally powerful in their own structure.[18] Mr. Voeun confirmed this. He also confirmed that they received the same orders.
Further, Mr. Koppe wanted to know whether the divisions shared information with each other. He said that the heads of the three branches of the military would hold meetings amongst themselves before forwarding the instructions to them. Mr. Koppe sought further clarification and read an excerpt of the witness’s statement, in which he had said that it was vital for them to share information. Mr. Voeun confirmed that this was correct.
Vietnamese refugees and fishermen
Moving to the next topic, Mr. Koppe inquired about the spotting of boats of fishermen or refugees: what would happen if they saw these boats? The witness answered that “during our defense of our territorial waters, that is to stop them fishing in our territorial waters, we cooperated with other divisions, including Division 164.”
Mr. Koppe again read an excerpt in which he had said that they had to distinguish between civilians and fisher boats that were escorted by military boats.[19] Mr. Voeun remembered this. He elaborated that they would approach the ships to inspect the boats. “For a fishing boat, we would chase it away. However, if we were fired upon, we would return fire.”
Mr. Koppe asked what happened to those who were determined to be refugees. He answered that when a Vietnamese boat went off-course with the intention to go to Thailand, they would capture that boat “and send it through a chain of command to the upper level.” When a boat was captured, this boat would be sent to Kampong Som. They would give the boat to Division 164, who would return it to Kampong Som.
Mr. Koppe said that a chairman had indicated that Son Sen ordered not to arrest Vietnamese refugees and let them travel on.[20] The witness confirmed them and said that this also applied to Thai refugees. He confirmed that they would be sent “wherever they wished to go.” He did not know the activities involved by the division.
Mr. Koppe read out an excerpt of a Division 164 commander, who was asked about internal and external enemies. He had indicated that the Vietnamese fishermen were not to be regarded as external enemies, but had violated the territorial integrity of Democratic Kampuchea. Mr. Voeun recounted that he “did not have anything to do with the Vietnamese fishermen”, since he did not encounter any. Vietnamese refugees, according to Mr. Voeun, were considered as ordinary people. “And when they were captured by my unit, I would send them” to the upper level, who would take decisions on how to proceed. He himself, however, did not consider them enemies, since they were afraid of war.
Mr. Koppe referred to a British author, who had spoken about the killing of Vietnamese refugees by Thai and Malay pirates.[21] Mr. Koppe wanted to know whether he had ever heard about this. Mr. Voeun said he had not.
Mr. Koppe then asked Mr. Voeun to explain further what he meant by fishermen being escorted by military boats. He answered that they sometimes entered their territorial waters at night time. These boats were usually accompanied by military warships.
At first, they only entered part of our territorial waters, but later on they actually encroached deeper into our waters. Then we had to actually show off our ships so that they would return to their waters. And later on, they kept encroaching our territorial waters and we decided not to capture them, but we reported to the division. […] And there could be ten or twenty fishing boats escorted by military boats […]. Then we received instructions, if the encroachment was deep into our territorial waters, we had to take measures against them […]. We would use weapons to approach them. And from my recollection, for the third approach, they fired upon us. Then, we returned fire. So then there were firing back and forth between the Thai fishing boats and our boats. And for the third encounter, they actually use their planes to shoot at us. Some of us were injured by the aerial bombardments from the planes and that led to the border conflict with Thailand. Then the Thai sent three more ships to attack us. And then the fighting between he Tha side and our side lasted for a week. So this is an example how we engaged into the fighting with the other forces.
They would send a report to the upper level, who would give them instructions on what to do next.
It led to our fighting along the land border as well. And after that we actually retreated from the fighting with the Thai side. […] Since that clash, the fishing activity from the Thai side seemed to reduce drastically.
However, he did not encounter Vietnamese fisher boats in that way.
Conference
Mr. Koppe turned to another topic, held at a coconut plantation in Kampong Speu, 25th July 1977. Mr. Voeun confirmed having been present at this conference, but it took place in 1972 or 1973. After a moment of reflection, Mr. Voeun said that he could not recall the year of the conference.
To jog the witness’s memory, Mr. Koppe referred to Mr. Voeun’s statement, in which he had talked about the conference that took place in 1977.[22] Mr. Koppe asked whether this coconut plantation belonged to Norodom Chan Raingsey. Mr. Voeun confirmed this and said that this was what the district committee said.
Mr. Koppe read an excerpt of a Revolutionary Flag, in which it had been mentioned that the subject on how to smash the “no good elements” were discussed during this conference.[23] Mr. Koppe inquired whether it was correct that the purpose of the meeting was how to distinguish enemies. He recounted that they wanted to find the “infiltrated elements” amongst the peasants. External enemies were those who attacked from the outside. He inquired whether what was said in the Revolutionary Flag was indeed said by Ta Sy or others. Mr. de Wilde interjected and said that the question had to be rephrased, since it might not have been Ta Sy who gave the speech. Judge Lavergne indicated that Mr. Koppe should refer to specific elements of the Revolutionary Flag. There was a short discussion, after which Mr. Koppe moved on.
He asked what Mr. Voeun recalled about Vorn Vet. He could neither recall Vorn Vet’s exact position, nor Vorn Vet’s messenger.
Clarifications
After the last break, Mr. Koppe took up his line of questioning by referring to the witness’s interview, in which he had said that Vorn Vet’s messenger was a military police colonel.[24] The witness answered that he did not know Vorn Vet’s messenger. Mr. Koppe inquired about Chu Chet alias Ta Sy, since he had told DC-Cam that he had planned a coup d’état.[25] Mr. Voeun said that this reflected what the division leaders told him. He recalled that he was briefly told about the plan by several persons, including Sao Phim, to plot against the Khmer Rouge regime. He had heard that the “Yuon” would “load women” to the barrack of Sao Phim close to the Cambodian-Vietnamese border. He was told this information by a medic.
Mr. Koppe read an excerpt of a Division 164 leader. This person had talked about four or five attempted coup d’états taking place in Phnom Penh.[26] He replied that he had not heard about this. The floor was then granted to the Co-Prosecutors.
Mr. de Wilde asked whether what he had heard about the coup d’états were rumors or whether there were stronger bases for this. He replied that his friends told him that the coup d’états took place. He was once told that there was a floating container with Russian letters on it. “It was floating in Phnom Penh”, and no one could read the letters. The plan was to topple Pol Pot, but I cannot tell you how many coup d’états were planned. He was only told about one attempt.
Mr. de Wilde then asked whether he heard the message that was broadcasted on the radio aiming at grouping the former ministers and high officials of the former Lon Nol regime before the ministry of information. He denied this. “I did not have any radio to listen to.” He did not go to the ministry of information. Mr. de Wilde asked how long he stayed in Phnom Penh before leaving again. He stayed there for a week before going to Kampot.
He did not attend any meeting with leaders before he went to Kampot.
Authority structure
Mr. de Wilde read out an excerpt, in which he had said that he had attended a meeting at the Olympic stadium.[27] Mr. de Wilde wanted to know when this meeting took place. He replied that he attended a meeting in Phnom Penh after he had gone to Koh Kong. Mr. de Wilde wanted to know when and where this meeting was held. The witness answered that he saw Nuon Chea and Pol Pot at the meeting. The meeting was for the army, the navy and the air force. Pol Pot made a speech “to congratulate the military”. Mr. de Wilde inquired whether this was when the army was re-organized.
Mr. de Wilde then quoted another excerpt. He had told DC-Cam that he arrived in Koh Kong in late 1975 or early 1975 and left to Preah Vihear in 1978.[28] He answered that he was transferred to Preah Vihear in August and spent four months there before the Vietnamese attacked Cambodia and occupied Phnom Penh. In Koh Kong, he had 2007 soldiers, but later only 1007. There were only male soldiers and not female soldiers in his unit. He knew Dim, since he stayed with him temporarily. “Sometimes, he spent only one night at my place, and then he left.”
Mr. de Wilde wanted to know whether he met someone called Dim.[29] The witness answered that Dim disappeared after
Mr. de Wilde wanted to know whether he knew someone called Saroeun and whether this person was a member of his family. He answered that it was his cousin and was the commander of Division 64. He did not meet Saroeun, since “[Saroeun] had his own business” and only sent his subordinates. Mr. de Wilde wanted to know who commanded Division 164 permanently stationed there in 1978. He answered that it was Ta Saroeun and Ta Muth to his understanding. He said that he did not know who was responsible of the division later than 1975.
He had mentioned that Sim was in charge.[30] The witness answered that Sim was a company commander and was not overall in charge of six vessels. “He supervised only three vessels.” There were also two American boats, so five boats in total.
Mr. de Wilde wanted to know whether Division 164 was in possession of rapid boats that were capable of capture and arrest other boats, which the witness confirmed. He also confirmed that the American boats were the PCF boats. “However, they were not as fast as those boats from China”. There were three Chinese vessels. He then mentioned the horse power of the vessels.
Mr. de Wilde then wanted to know whether the Vietnamese vessels had powerful engines. He replied that they were thirty or forty horsepower boats, in contrast to the 150 or 250 horsepower boats on the Cambodian side.
Chain of Command
Mr. de Wilde then wanted to know whether he effectively received orders only from Ta Soeun in his Division 1. He confirmed this. He would make a report to the zone if Soeung was not there.
“Usually, the report was made to Soeun.” Mr. de Wilde wanted to know whether his office had a code name. He answered that he did not have any proper office and would usually stay together with the soldiers. Mr. de Wilde said that he had understood that he communicated with telegrams and asked whether he did not have any office to receive telegrams. He answered that houses in general were used for this.
He denied ever receiving direct orders from Son Sen. Mr. de Wilde quoted the interview he had given to DC-Cam, in which he had said that he communicated with Son Sen with telegrams and radio.[31] He replied that he received the orders from Ta Soeung. Thus, he would see both Son Sen’s and Ta Soeung’s name on the telegrams.
Treatment of the Vietnamese
Mr. de Wilde then asked about the term “Yuon” that he used when referring to Vietnamese refugees. He inquired whether the term Yuon invariably designated Vietnamese soldiers and civilians, which the witness confirmed. “Usually every Cambodian referred to them as Yuon.”
Turning to one of his last topics, he asked whether he heard that there was a plan to eliminate those Vietnamese who were living in Cambodia between 1975 and 1979. Mr. Voeun confirmed this.
I heard about the Vietnamese living in Kampuchea. Vietnamese who lived in Cambodia did intend to cause troubles to the Cambodian people and did not do an honest living. Initially, starting from 1970, they were peacefully sent back to their country by the government, and that continued until 1975. Thus, for us later on, we were instructed that the Vietnamese had to be smashed, because they did not return to their country. There were then clashes along the border due to this issue.
Mr. de Wilde asked whether there were many Vietnamese who had not returned to Vietnam, for example in the East Zone. Mr. Voeun confirmed this. “Not every one of them returned, some of them remained living in Kampuchea or married Kampuchean people.” The majority of those people remained living in Kampong Chhnang. This is why there were clashes between Cambodians and Vietnamese people. “They were still living in Cambodia when the Vietnamese troops attacked us.” Mr. de Wilde said that he had spoken about mixed marriages and inquired what would happen to the children of a couple in which the wife was Vietnamese and the husband Cambodian. He wanted to know whether it was necessary to “smash the children” as well. Mr. Voeun replied that he did not know very well. He gave the example of his aunt who had married a Vietnamese man. They had two mixed children. When the Vietnamese entered in 1970, his two nephews were sent to Vietnam where they still live now. His aunt’s husband was arrested. After her husband was arrested, she attempted to flee and was also arrested. Only their children survived in Vietnam. He did not know the details of the policy of the Democratic Kampuchean government. The Cambodian people were “angry” at the “Yuon” and attacked by the Vietnamese troops later. “So the spirit of revenge still lives on. If they were to live in Kampuchea in harmony, nothing would happen, but they did not. So we hate the Yuon people”. Even now, he said, there were Yuons living in Cambodia.
Mr. de Wilde wanted to know how the Cambodian government differentiated Vietnamese people from the Khmer people, since some of them had been living there for generations. He replied that he had observed that “even the wife of the Late King Sihanouk is Vietnamese”
and was still alive. He said that they did not have any problem if the Vietnamese lived peacefully. However, he believed that they “were not allowed to live” in Cambodia under Democratic Kampuchea, since they had learned about the conflict between the Vietnamese and the Cambodian people. Mr. de Wilde then wanted to know whether he made the differentiation between “Yuon” and Vietnamese by their accents, which he confirmed. He differentiated them with their accents and because their neighbors knew how long they had been living there. “The local villagers would know that they were Yuon.”
At this point, the President adjourned the hearing and announced that Mr. Voeun’s testimony would continue tomorrow morning at 9 am. Witness Im Yoeun would be heard afterwards.
[1] Testimony of Sao Van, 02 July 2015, at 10:43.
[2] Testimony of Pech Chim, 24 April 2015, at 09:43.
[3] E3/1593, at 01150043 (EN), p. 92, 00638827 (FR), 00637496 (KH).
[4] E3/117.
[5] E3/118, at 00166896 (EN).
[6] E3/9118, at p. 11, 01098756 (EN), 00957786 (KH).
[7] E3/9118, at 01098758 (EN), 00957789 (KH).
[8] At 01098766 (EN), 00957800 (KH).
[9] E319/36, of 16 November 2015; E319/22.3.32.
[10] E319/23.3.18 and E319/23.2.12
[11] E319/23.3.17.1, E319/23.3.17 and E319/23.3.18.
[12] E3/8752.
[13] 00849487 (EN), 00733313 (KH).
[14] 00849494 (EN) 00733320 (KH).
[15]At 00849495 (EN), 00733321 (KH)
[16] E3/424, at answer 5.
[17] 00849501 (EN) 00733339 (KH), E319/23.3.13, Questions 5 and 24.
[18] E319/23.3.30.
[19] E319/23.3.32, answer 8.
[20] E319/23.3.12, answer 75.
[21] E3/9, p. 309, at 00396587 (EN), 00639951 (FR).
[22] E3/80, at answer 14.
[23] E3/193, at 00399236 (EN), 00062965-66 (KH), 00611840-41 (FR).
[24] E3/8752, at 00849489 (EN), 00733315 (KH).
[25] Ibid., 00849503 (EN), 00733330 (KH).
[26] E319/23.3.17.1, at 01170833 (EN), 00996698 (FR), 00955619 (KH).
[27] E3/73, at answer 13.
[28] E3/8572, p. 10 in English and Khmer.
[29] E319/23.3.30.
[30] E319/23.3.31.
[31] E3/8752, p. 27 in English, p. 30 in Khmer.
Featured Image: Witness Meas Voeun (courtesy by ECCC: Flickr)