At 9:03 a.m. Judge Nil Nonn started the day’s proceedings. The Greffier confirmed that all parties are present except for Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer Marie Guiraud who is delayed, and Nuon Chea, who has waived his right to be present at trial and will follow the proceedings remotely.
Judge Nonn yielded the floor to the Khieu Samphan Defense team.
Ms. Guissé continued her presentation from yesterday with a discussion of the 1st January Dam worksite. She noted that the prosecution acknowledged in their brief that the presence of Khieu Samphan at the 1st January Dam is not clearly established. They then attempted to link Khieu Samphan to the 1st January Dam by using a speech he gave in 1977, without explaining how this contributes to any of the crimes alleged at the 1st January Dam. The prosecution listed the charges at the 1st January Dam as murder, extermination, enslavement, political and religious persecution, and other inhumane acts. Though these charges are complete and accurate, in the next paragraph, the prosecution characterizes facts of arrest and detention, which is not part of the list of the crimes. Ms. Guissé stated that this continues her theme from yesterday, that the prosecution has not applied any intellectual rigor to proving their case.
She noted that it is not up to the defense to sort through the charged facts at each place.
As far as evidence related to the Kampong Chhnang Airfield, Ms. Guissé offered an illustration of the prosecution’s presentation of information for show, but that does not constitute evidence. In this section, the prosecution quoted Duch, who never went to the site. And they mention that murders have been established at the Kampong Chhnang Airfield, and this evidence is weak as discussed by both the Nuon Chea defense team and in Khieu Samphan’s brief.
With regard to the alleged visits of Khieu Samphan to the Kampong Chhnang Airfield, Ms. Guissé noted that the prosecution evidence relies on written statements and subsequent court testimony. She explained that both of these sources of evidence from the same person are less reliable when they contradict each other. She gave two examples of witnesses who had said categorically in their witness statements that they had Khieu Samphan visit the worksite. But both witnesses admitted in court that the basis for their knowledge was that they had been told by someone else that Khieu Samphan and other leaders had arrived, and they could not testify that they personally saw him, provide descriptions, or dates of the visit. Ms. Guissé concluded that this testimony is therefore hearsay.
In addition, Ms. Guissé noted that Son Sen’s revolutionary alliance was in charge of the military headquarters and his nickname was Khieu. All of the witnesses agree that the Kampong Chhnang Airfield was a military site, and as such, Ms. Guissé said that Son Sen, aka Khieu, would likely visit regularly. Ms. Guissé suggested the possibility that forty years later, when people are not clear on details, perhaps they are confusing Khieu, who was Son Sen, with Khieu Samphan. This is an element that casts doubt on the reliability of their testimony.
The only evidence that the substantiates that there were executions at Kampong Chhnang Airfield was the statement of one person. To be credible, this witness’s statement requires evidence that is only found at security centers that are not in the scope of the case, and so cannot stand on its own.
Ms. Guissé noted that in totality, what this demonstrates is that the evidence is simply not sufficient at Kampong Chhnang Airfield.
Next, Ms. Guissé addressed the treatment of former Khmer Republic soldiers. This was an area that demonstrated the confusion with regard to the charges that Khieu Samphan must answer to. In their brief, the prosecution submits that Khieu Samphan is being prosecuted for policy against the former Khmer Republic throughout the entire country. However, in the closing order, the first population movement is the only place where the policy against the Khmer Republic is described for the whole country. Otherwise, any place where possible crimes against former Khmer Republic officials and soldiers is done on a site-by-site basis, that is at S-21, Kraing Ta Chan, Tram Kok cooperatives, and the 1st January Dam. This is not the totality of Cambodia.
Crimes against the Vietnamese and the Cham
As Ms. Guissé has noted, the prosecution has concerned itself very little with the geographical scope of the closing order. This is a problem that Chamber has had to deal with throughout this trial, because not limiting the discussion to geographic sites allowed us to speak about policy in general terms. But the problem with speaking about general policy is that the Chamber is seized of with precise facts and crimes that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
There are only two areas where there are allegations of persecution against Vietnamese: Prey Veng and Svay Rieng provinces. And those are the only locations where the prosecution must prove both genocidal intent and genocide. But during the two days of the prosecution’s oral argument, we heard many witnesses speak about the treatment of the Vietnamese, except at Prey Veng and Svay Rieng Provinces.
There are submissions on the case file which demonstrate that the prosecution knew very well that the genocide against the Vietnamese was limited to these two provinces. For example, in one submission, a request for extra witnesses, they said “the CIJs considered that they had been seized of facts regarding the treatment of the Vietnamese in the provinces of Prey Veng and Svay Rieng in the East Zone and during the incursions into Vietnam. When the Chamber severed the charges in Case 002, it excluded from the scope of the second case the crimes that were committed during the incursions into Vietnam. For this reason, the charges of genocide which the Vietnamese were victims of only concern the crimes committed in the provinces of Prey Veng and Svay Rieng.” The charges of crimes against humanity based on the treatment of the Vietnamese are concentrated on these two areas, as well.
Ms. Guissé then asked, why is the prosecution now talking about everything but these two provinces? She offered an explanation, which is that the evidence is not sufficient in those provinces: the only evidence is hearsay, and there is no proof of genocide by murder, so the prosecution is using evidence outside the scope of the trial to prove what they cannot prove at the locations that the Chamber is seized of.
Ms. Guissé noted that the civil parties were much closer to what procedure should be and more intellectually honest with regard to procedure than the prosecution. It is necessary to apply law properly, so the determination of the locations for which the crime of genocide is being prosecuted in this trial need to be very clear.
Next, with regard to the treatment of the Vietnamese, the prosecution mentions a list of charges that does not correspond to the list that we created. In particular, there is the issue of deportation. The defense asks that the Chamber address this legal issue. [Discussed at some length during yesterday’s hearing.]
Among the crimes listed by the prosecution with regard to the issue of the Vietnamese we see the issue of persecution on racial grounds at S-21, and this we challenge. We explain in the brief that this cannot be proved because there is no discrimination that we can determine between Khmer and Vietnamese, all prisoners were considered in the same way.
Ms. Guissé noted that in the prosecution brief they detail the points that for them illustrate a genocidal policy against the Vietnamese. There are four points: (i) the Vietnamese were a distinct ethnic group; (ii) a policy of deportation and murder of the Vietnamese; (iii) destruction of Vietnamese due to their ethnicity and not because they were military targets; and (iv) that they were targeted because they were an ethnic group. Then the move to the implementation of the policy.
Ms. Guissé pointed out that they are talking about the Vietnamese in the context of armed conflict. Defense also discussed about genocide by murder and that the evidence was insufficient to show genocide by murder and also the persecution of the Vietnamese.
Ms. Guissé next addressed the prosecution’s argument that the transfer or deportation of a population can show intent of genocide by murder, noting that Khieu Samphan was only charged with genocide by murder in this case. The prosecution had cited to an ICTY case in support of their argument, but, Ms. Guissé argued, in the facts of that case, the murders that constituted genocide by murder occurred concomitantly with the movement of the population. For the facts of Case 002/02, the great movements of Vietnamese returning to Vietnam occurred in 1975. The closing order set the beginning of the genocidal intent toward the Vietnamese in 1977. These events are not occurring at the same time.
Ms. Guissé noted the weakness of the prosecution’s evidence and the way that prosecution ignored the SCC decision that raised the correct approach to evidence. She wondered how many written statements and writings of authors have been cited to support the prosecution’s statements on genocide. She noted that the prosecution relied heavily on their favorite author, Ben Kiernan, who the SCC said was not reliable because he never came to the tribunal to testify in open court. The prosecution also quoted Alexander Hinton, but he largely quoted from Mr. Kiernan. When Mr. Hinton testified in court, he spoke about genocide in the sociological and anthropological sense of the word, and he was talking about genocide of the Khmer, so a self-genocide. Ms. Guissé mentioned two more authors cited by the prosecution though they did not appear in court, or whose research needed bolstering. She requested the Chamber to carefully review and avoid the elements of low probative value.
Ms. Guissé also noted that the correct way for the prosecution to proceed is to present the facts for each crime at each site, and what they do site-by-site, not to create a patchwork of evidence for the elements of the crime from different locations. This does not satisfy the evidentiary standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” She then gave an example of Heng Lai Heang, a civil party who was asked about the Vietnamese at some length. She testified that at the base where she located, there were no Vietnamese, and what she had said about the Vietnamese was what she had heard from others. Moreover, the testimony referred a location that was in neither Prey Veng nor Svay Rieng. The prosecution based their genocide of the Vietnamese claim on her testimony, which was hearsay and not in either of the two districts.
Ms. Guissé said that a review of the prosecution’s sources reveals written statement after written statement, and they even include one confession from S-21 used to establish the existence of the list of Vietnamese and another confession where the content was used to show presence of Vietnamese. They prosecution cites to several documents that discuss the Khmer Krom, which are outside the scope of trial. And they rely on statements by witness Sao Sak, which has been shown to be speculation. Ms. Guissé stated that these are not just documents of low probative value but they are outside the scope of trial.
Ms. Guissé mentioned that in the brief, defense addressed the prosecution theory of matrilineal affiliation, analyzing the theory in detail in the two districts.
She then reiterated the prosecution had ignored the context of armed conflict in which Khieu Samphan had given speeches, which the prosecution relied on for indication of genocidal intent. Mr. Guissé listed the dates of the speeches with the correlating context:
- December 31, 1977, this speech was given when Vietnamese troops entered Cambodian territory.
- April 15, 1978, Khieu Samphan gave two speeches just after the Vietnamese troops withdrew.
- January 2, 1979, this speech was given just before the arrival of the Vietnamese troops in Cambodian territory, when the armed conflict was at its height.
Ms. Guissé concluded that if this is the evidence on the treatment of the Vietnamese, then it is insufficient and the Chamber cannot use it to convict Khieu Samphan.
Ms. Guissé noted that the use of the term genocide was a political creation of Vietnam at the time. The Vietnamese were talking about a genocide against the Khmer people. It was war propaganda at this point, that is why was this word introduced. This means that Vietnam, who arrived and occupied Cambodia for several years, who was a major military force at the time, and managing the local authorities, they are the ones with the access to the most information and at the earliest time, so if genocide against the Vietnamese was so flagrant then why did they not use the genocide against the Vietnamese in their propaganda against the Khmer? Why did they only discuss genocide against the Khmer? In this court, if we cannot get a conviction for genocide, it is as if we have not done our job well, but looking at the evidence properly and impartially and applying the rules of law is what we are to do.
Treatment of the Cham
Ms. Guissé next recognized that Nuon Chea defense had spoken a lot of the absence of evidence proving the specific intent of genocide. She would discuss the lack of a CPK policy towards the Cham. There are no CPK documents indicating a policy against the Cham. There was hearsay and witness statements that defense noted are not credible. Ysa Osman was an expert called by the prosecution, who said there were no CPK documents. The only document that Ysa Osman used in his work on the Cham’s rebellion was a telegram of DK noting that there was a desire to destroy the Cham race. But defense noted that this telegram was not specifically about the Cham, it referenced a group of people who were carrying out subversive conduct. This included the Cham, former Lon Nol cadres, and others from the province who were acting to destroy the DK.
Another note on Ysa Osman, aside from his lack of credibility and lack of impartiality, he carried out his research in provinces that are not considered in this case. Even if he was not looking at the right provinces to raise the issue of the Cham, the CIJs noted that the Cham were treated like everyone else. And lastly, in looking at the movement of the Cham in Case 002/02, Ms. Guissé noted that the Cham were moved as part of the national movement of people, as was explained in Case 002/01, but that due to the severance of Case 002, this is not a separated targeted movement of population but part of the national movements that is only just dealt with now.
Ms. Guissé next addressed the witnesses on which the prosecution relied. First, she noted that Prak Yut spoke about an order regarding the treatment of the Cham, and as a result the highest possible authority on the treatment of the Cham might be her superior, at the sector level. And the prosecution cited a witness who said that Prak Yut went to Phnom Penh regularly, but they leave this implication with no substantiation, and there is no evidence about what happened in Phnom Penh. Lastly, Ms. Guissé noted that the prosecution had cited a witness for the corroboration of an alleged policy, but what he actually said was “when I participated in study sessions at the higher level I had never received an order to purge the Cham, not at all, never. In spite of the fact that there was a very chaotic situation, Ke Pauk never established a plan to eliminate the Cham, and as far as I know, it is those who participated in the rebellion who were eliminated, not the Cham.”
Treatment of Buddhists
Ms. Guissé noted that the treatment of the Buddhists highlights all of the issues that defense has had with the way that this trial has progressed. First, to provide the Chamber with a bit of chronology.
- First, an introductory submission is submitted from the prosecution to CIJs, where the prosecution asks the CIJs to investigate certain facts at certain locations.
- Second, the CIJs pretend to be seized of facts related to the Buddhists that occurred throughout the entire country so that they may investigate on everything in the submission but they actually only investigated sites not mentioned in introductory or supplemental submissions.
- Third, the prosecution, during trial itself, requested that defendants only be tried with regard to facts related to Buddhists at Tram Kok, but the prosecution knows that they never seized the CIJs with facts relating to Buddhists at Tram Kok.
- Fourth, the prosecution says in their brief, that contrary to what they included in the introductory submission, evidence proves that crimes were committed against Buddhists across the entire country.
The defense requests that, because of the procedural irregularities, the Chamber must set aside the treatment of Buddhists issue.
Issue of Khieu Samphan responsibility
Next, Ms. Guissé reacted to the prosecution theory of the “gang of three,” noting that it is an opportunistic interpretation of the facts that will sound good in the press. Ms. Guissé said this is a “guilty by association” argument by the prosecution. This argument does not address the fact that Khieu Samphan was never actually a member of the standing committee. The prosecution showed statistics and graphs, but they were based on records that did not go beyond 1976, so with regard to the issue of genocide, we cannot conclude that Khieu Samphan took any decisions.
Ms. Guissé asked what is there that is new in this case regarding Khieu Samphan responsibility? The prosecution put forth witnesses but they only showed part of the story as they did not include the rest of the testimony or the relevant portions of defense’s cross-examination. She reviewed witness testimony where the witnesses identify Khieu Samphan at education or study sessions to support the “gang of three” theory, but base their testimony on hearsay, or contradict themselves and are thus unreliable.
Another witness said that Khieu Samphan did not demand or ask for any leadership role in the party, he submitted himself to the party and it was up to the party to judge whether he was capable to take any assignments the party assigned him. But Ms. Guissé notes that the same witness later says that the position of Khieu Samphan was no different to other ambassadors. In Case 002/01, the same witness said that during negotiations (with Vietnam) in 1980, he, the witness, had more authority than Khieu Samphan had. Defense also spoke to King Sihanouk several times, he said Khieu Samphan had to align himself with the Khmer Rouge even though it was not what he felt in his heart
In reality, the function of Khieu Samphan looks like more of an accessory. Can the prosecution just say “Office 870 and Ministry of Commerce” and have that be enough proof that Khieu Samphan was implicated, even though that was not what this Chamber concluded in Case 002/01? Ms. Guissé quoted the Chamber’s decision in Case 002/01:
“Having considered the evidence, the Chamber is not satisfied that Khieu Samphan ever served as the chairman of Office 870. The Chamber is therefore unable to say whether Khieu Samphan saw all of the telegrams and documents passing through or copied to Office 870, in particular, all of those which did not concern his specific area of policy responsibility.”
Ms. Guissé said that the prosecution acts as if the Chamber never ruled on this. They have a theory, not a demonstration of proof. They also say that the proof that Khieu Samphan knew about everything, especially with the security centers, is that he took care of King Sihanouk. But, Ms. Guissé asked, what does King Sihanouk have to do with the security centers?
The prosecution showed a video where the king talks about his visit to the cooperatives. They did not show you another video where he was interviewed by French journalists, where he says sometimes he went to the dentist with his wife. The king said that on these trips, he would see people in the streets, coming home from the factories, and they didn’t seem unhappy. He didn’t talk to them because he was going to the dentist. The king also said that at the worksites, the people were working hard but didn’t seem unhappy or famished.
Ms. Guissé requested that the Chamber not take one video that was out of context and rely only on that one when there are other videos that are contradictory.
Ms. Guissé ’s main point is that the true basis for responsibility in the prosecution theory is Khieu Samphan’s alleged involvement in a joint criminal enterprise (JCE). [Author’s note: here Ms. Guissé referred to a footnote in the prosecution brief, in which the Co-Prosecutor’s acknowledge that their articulation of JCE differs from how the JCE was described in the closing order.] Ms. Guissé said that the prosecution’s articulation was simpler but it was poorly disguised wording of JCE-3.
Ms. Guissé said that this is the same thing that SCC did with dolor eventualis (which was to reduce the intent required), the SCC also did with JCE.
In their brief, the prosecution says that JCE-3 was deemed to be not applicable at the ECCC, and that charging JCE-1 fits the facts of Case 002/02 and best describes the liability of Nuon Chea and Khieu Samphan for all crimes in Case 002/02.
Ms. Guissé noted that this is first time that the prosecution has said this about JCE-1. For ten years the prosecution has only been focused on JCE-3, and since the closing order they have been advocating for JCE-3 and the other forms of JCE.
Before the severance in Case 002, in 2011, the prosecution asked this Chamber if JCE-3 was applicable at the ECCC, and this Chamber made a decision. In spite of that, this Chamber was asked to apply JCE-2, in the final brief and submissions, in 2013, where Co-Prosecutor William Smith says to this Chamber that the systematic form of JCE is the legal characterization and the most apt for the accusations and the charges, and this includes violence and malicious acts against a civilian population.
In 2014, Co-Prosecutor Nicholas Koumjian said that the prosecution thinks that JCE-3 is an important issue which affects Case 002/02. And then he explains why he will appeal: the prosecution will be asking the SCC to find that JCE-3 was part of international criminal law in 1975, which is the jurisprudence of other international tribunals. This means that the crimes that were outside the intent of the members of the JCE, not the objectives of the enterprise, but that they were natural and foreseeable, and foreseen by the Accused, that they could be held responsible. At the same hearing, Mr. Koumjian offers an example in support. He said that rape was an excellent example, as rape was a natural and foreseeable consequences of the policy to force marriage.
Then the SCC held that JCE-3 was not a part of international criminal law in 1975, but the prosecution’s case has not changed.
But the SCC provided an ad hoc formula, a hybrid definition of JCE, that makes it easier to convict the Accused without respecting the principle of legality. And now the prosecution who supported this Chamber for ten years in that JCE-3 is important and JCE-1 is not enough to convict, they did an opportunistic follow-up on what the SCC said.
Ms. Guissé said that her team went through JCE at length in the defense brief as it was important for defense to show the mechanism used by the SCC to distort the JCE. Natural consequences and foreseeable crimes cannot be part of a JCE-1 and the SCC has linked it so that those are included under JCE-1. The SCC version of JCE-1 is just a poorly disguised version of JCE-3.
Ms. Guissé explained that the proper definition of JCE, which did not violate the principle of legality, is based on the jurisprudence. In its brief, defense explained why crimes that were foreseeable had not been included before the creation of this SCC hybrid definition. The prosecution needed a hybrid definition because in JCE-1, it is necessary to show the Accused’s contribution to the criminal enterprise. Simply being present with other people is not sufficient to consider that one is responsible under JCE-1 and Ms. Guissé cited an ICTR appeal judgement in support.
Next, still looking at the principle of legality, defense cannot consider that the practice was part of customary international law unless it was a uniform state practice that was widespread and accepted as being law. This SCC is the first to look at this type of JCE-1 in disguise, defense cannot say it was part of customary international law, nor is it credible, but defense can say that this is a clear violation of the principle of legality. We know that this form of JCE-1 is not part of customary law because it was the creation of the SCC.
In this case, in both crimes and modes of responsibility, the prosecution and this Chamber have been constantly trying to lower the degree of intent. From the prosecution’s side, they have always supported the SCC, but the jurisprudence that they cite does not correspond at all to the SCC’s JCE-1 creation.
And lastly, the prosecutors confound JCE and the commission of a crime. In their brief, they cite to SCC 002/01, the Rome Statute, and three decisions from the ICTR to try to support the new JCE-1 definition. But in this case, we are talking about an indirect commission of a crime. The jurisprudence they cite to talks about commission with direct participation, which is very different from this case. The prosecutors are trying to find justification a priori for the creation of the SCC. The defense requested that the Chamber read the cited jurisprudence carefully.
International criminal tribunals have always made a clear distinction between the three types of JCE and between the commission, direct participation, and indirect participation. This is something new created by the SCC, and so violates principle of legality. This shows the extent of problem with the SCC, when there are such problems with the principle of legality, this Chamber must set this aside. If this Chamber respects the principle of legality, it must apply the definition of JCE as you and most criminal courts have determined it because repeating the mistake of the SCC is not a solution, repeating a mistake does not make it truth.
Defense asks the Chamber to respect the law and to examine the elements that lower the degree of intent and provide definitions that are posterior laws to those that existed between 1975 and 1979.
Conclusion of observations
Ms. Guissé recalled the statement of her colleague of Marie Guiraud who said that one year is too long for judgment. We have provided a more expeditious way: if you apply law properly and the rules of a fair trial, you will be able to have full deliberations and not take a year. You will even be able to acquit, as regardless, Khieu Samphan will die in jail. You have an opportunity to apply law properly and make sure there is a real contribution to the legacy of the ECCC.
Ms. Guissé yielded the floor.
Judge Nonn asked the defense teams for their plan for Friday, for the court’s planning purposes. He asked Mr. Victor Koppe what his plan was for final rebuttal and final statement of Accused, if he has consulted his client, and if he is going to speak first or if the Accused will make a statement first. Mr. Koppe said they have consulted Nuon Chea, and that it is highly unlikely that Nuon Chea will speak at all, but he left open the possibility for Nuon Chea to do so. Whether defense uses their right to rebuttal, it depends on what the civil parties and prosecution say in rebuttal. If the rebuttal is just a repetition of their briefs and the presentation last week, then defense may not have anything more to say. Ms. Guissé said that, as a French lawyer, if the defendant does not speak last, it breaks the rules, so they will divide their time on that basis.
Judge Nonn reminded the civil parties and prosecution that today and tomorrow is shared time between them, to decide themselves the division of time.
Court was adjourned for a lunch break. When the afternoon session began, Judge Nonn gave the floor to the civil party lawyers for rebuttal.
Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer Marie Guiraud noted that the aspiration of the Khieu Samphan defense is to recall the law, and that of Nuon Chea is to rewrite history.
Ms. Guiraud said she had three main points to her rebuttal: the issue of the extent of the jurisdiction, majority of crimes, and the individual criminal responsibility of the Accused.
Before Ms. Guiraud began her main point, she first discussed Nuon Chea’s aspiration to rewrite history, because it is on the basis of that aspiration that they can understand his defense. The Nuon Chea defense have presented a total defense which is more an exercise in style, stretching the metaphor of the crocodile to its limit, never depriving themselves of a nice turn of phrase. But they do not include applicable law to support their arguments or to understand his request for complete acquittal.
The jurisprudence on “other inhumane acts” is not analyzed. The decision of the SCC confirming that rape outside of forced marriages is not within the scope of the trial is ignored. The elements of crimes and the modes of responsibility are systematically mixed up. The Nuon Chea defense presents his counter account and it is just as Manichean as the narrative they condemn and is somewhat disconnected from the trial before this Chamber. From the documents cited by Nuon Chea, more than 100 of them are not been tendered into evidence, so that the Chamber cannot use those documents in their findings. This Chamber allowed defense to present documents during oral arguments whose admission this Chamber previously rejected but in respect of which they would wish a review.
Furthermore, contrary to Article 15 in the Convention against Torture, this Chamber accepted the contents of confessions obtained at S-21, allowing the Defense to unfold its counter account, the true history of the DK, without allowing the public to understand the elements that you need to take into account in your deliberations.
Next, Ms. Guiraud discussed the rewriting history as Nuon Chea tells us, and recalling the law as Khieu Samphan defense states.
For purposes of introduction, the civil parties agree with Khieu Samphan defense on the legal framework, and the principles referred to during the proceedings. This Chamber is seized of the facts, all the facts, and just the facts contained in the closing order.
Ms. Guiraud noted that with regard to the issue of jurisdiction referred to by her colleague, the issue of deporting Vietnamese to Prey Veng and Svay Rieng, and the issue of torture at Kraing Ta Chan, the civil parties would like to recall elements to put Khieu Samphan defense in their proper context. The Khieu Samphan defense did not appeal the indictment of their client, particularly in regard to the charge of deportation. This is a crime which crosses borders, so Khieu Samphan had an opportunity to challenge that charge.
Second, the Khieu Samphan defense did not appeal the closing order relating to the jurisdiction. They made a request generally, but did not for the specific issue of jurisdiction. Lastly, Khieu Samphan defense did not raise any preliminary objections on the issue of jurisdiction, torture at Kraing Ta Chan, the treatment of Buddhists, and nothing on deportations to Prey Veng and Svay Rieng. Those preliminary objections of Ieng Sary regarding the issue of deportation, following the death of Ieng Sary. I refer to those three points to place the request of the Khieu Samphan team in their proper context.
The civil parties have no interest in showing that the Accused are convicted for crimes that were not properly referred to your Chamber for trial. Based on this conviction, the civil parties have tried to be as attentive as possible to the question of this Chamber’s jurisdiction throughout the trial. I will respond one point at a time on the request of the Khieu Samphan team, starting with the Khmer Krom. The civil parties never considered that the Chamber was seized of facts relating to the Khmer Krom as a distinct group. In closing arguments, the civil parties never considered the Khmer Krom as a distinct group, rather the civil parties included the testimony of a civil party who testified to the disappearance of families at Tram Kok. Those families were Khmer Krom and Vietnamese, but the testimony was just to show that families disappeared.
With regard to facts relating to the deportation of Vietnamese to Vietnam, the facts relating to deportation to Prey Veng and Svay Rieng, it is true that Khieu Samphan joined a preliminary objection by Ieng Sary, and this Chamber responded. In that decision, this Chamber was of the view that facts relating to Prey Veng and Svay Rieng were included in this trial. As a result, the civil parties considered that this Chamber was validly seized of facts related to the deportation of the Vietnamese and facts related to Prey Veng and Svay Rieng, that is why the civil parties included certain facts and civil party testimony in their closing arguments.
Third point, as to extent of this Chamber’s jurisdiction over facts that can be characterized as genocide through the commission of murders as regards the Vietnamese, Khieu Samphan says that this is only limited to Prey Veng and Svay Rieng provinces, and civil parties have respected that and the civil parties included civil party statements on the murders of the only three families that remained in those two provinces in 1977.
Fourth point, a specific response to the issue of rape outside the context of marriage. As far as the civil parties are concerned, rapes at Tram Kok Cooperative or at Kraing Ta Chan security center, the civil parties took note of the decisions of this Chamber and the SCC. In light of those decisions, the civil parties decided not to include in their closing arguments any evidence that may lead to convictions of Nuon Chea or Khieu Samphan for rape outside the context of marriage under other inhumane acts. And we say that with so much bitterness as we are convinced that the Accused were properly charged with those crimes, and I lost a significant amount of time without this Chamber stopping me on examining S-21 on that point.
With regard to this Chamber’s decision on that point, the civil parties still do not understand this Chamber or the SCC decisions on that point. In 2009, the CIJs indicted Khieu Samphan and Nuon Chea for facts relating to rape, after examining “elements and evidence concerning cooperatives and labor camps as well as security centers and execution sites.” The defense did not appeal the indictment. The CIJs did not rule on a dismissal of those facts. To date, the civil parties still do not understand the decisions that this Chamber and the SCC took, but we took note of them.
The fifth point, is to clarify about the Angk Roka prison, which is in one of the eight communes in Tram Kok cited in the introductory submission. So, this Chamber is properly seized, and this Chamber had also decided that it is in the scope of this trial. This is why the civil parties included the testimony of the detainee at that prison.
The sixth point is regarding facts relating to torture at Kraing Ta Chan are mentioned in the closing order and that same closing order referred Khieu Samphan and Nuon Chea to trial for torture relating to those facts. When that decision was issued, the Khieu Samphan defense did not appeal against it on that particular point. No preliminary objection was raised on this specific point, there were no objections throughout the hearings when witnesses and civil parties testified on facts that could be characterized as torture. And today Khieu Samphan says that facts relating to torture are not in the introductory submission, then you are not seized with torture.
Ms. Guiraud considers this position inaccurate for the following reasons: in the introductory submission, you have annexes and when the prosecution seizes the CIJs he seizes them with the introductory submission and annexes. And in those annexes, there is the testimony of a civil party survivor of Kraing Ta Chan, who suffered acts that could be regarded as torture. So, the civil parties are the view that the CIJs were seized of the introductory submission and the annexes, and had the possibility of investigating facts relating to torture. This is what they did openly as there is a request for investigative action on those acts from the prosecution. The Khieu Samphan defense did not react to that request for investigative action, so the civil parties are of the view that the Chamber is properly seized of the facts that may be characterized as torture at Kraing Ta Chan.
Legal submissions of Khieu Samphan defense with regard to recharacterizing facts say that this Chamber cannot recharacterize facts because the parties and defense were not informed of that possibility. They refer to a footnote in the civil party final brief, where the civil parties quote the decision of the SCC in Case 002/01 which recharacterized the facts of extermination into murder. Ms. Guiraud recalled the rules that should apply to this Chamber. Internal rule 88.2 says that the Chamber may amend the recharacterization of facts insofar that it does not add any constitutive elements. In the view of the civil parties, there is no jurisprudence that obliges this Chamber to notify parties in advance so long as you do not add constitutive elements, and some of the deaths that were suffered at Tram Kok are closer to murder than extermination and so the Chamber can recharacterize those facts.
With regard to the crime of enslavement, there is a divergence of points of view on this. The civil parties have adopted the definition from the SCC, who reminded us that the actus reus is in the exercise one or all of the attributes of ownership, whereas the mens rea is to intend to exercise one or all of the attributes of ownership. The SCC considers that forced labor is one of the indicia that allows for the characterization of the crime of enslavement. For us forced labor is characterized, it suffices, otherwise the Chamber would have to dig into a catalog of indicia around the notion of control. Did the CPK exercise any control over people at the worksites or cooperatives? Physical control, psychological control, freedom of movement, family life, control that discourages any attempt by people to flee. And the civil parties have included civil party evidence on the crime of enslavement.
Ms. Guiraud noted her last point on the testimony of Sar Sarin. The civil party position may have been misunderstood and poorly explained. Sar Sarin did not complete his testimony and defense could not cross-examine him. But complete or not, testimony is part of the case file. So, the civil parties included his testimony in the brief, in the summary of testimony of the 64 civil parties who appeared before the Chamber, but we did not include Sar Sarin’s testimony in the list of civil party testimony that could assist the Chamber in characterizing the role of the Accused. The civil parties took note of Internal Rule 87.2 which says that the Chamber will rely only on evidence tendered into evidence during the hearing and which was the subject of adversarial debate, without exception.
Next, Ms. Guiraud continued with the second set of comments. On the existence of the crimes that were actually committed, we must differentiate the facts of which this Chamber was seized, specifically if the facts constitute a crime or the existence of a crime, and then the responsibility of the Accused. The Khieu Samphan defense team has carried out work throughout this trial and in its final statements to test the evidence that has been presented to this Chamber, including the testimony of several civil parties. Despite of or because of that, Khieu Samphan does not contest in his final statements a significant portion of the crimes with which he is charged. That is, he is saying that the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that what happened in the labor camps can constitute enslavement, that the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that what happened in the security centers of S-21 and Kraing Ta Chan can constitute crimes of imprisonment or murder, and that acts that can be characterized as torture did occur at S-21. The Khieu Samphan defense and the Accused recognize that sometimes when faced with the evidence, doubt disappears.
Nuon Chea takes a different approach and contests all of the crimes. He says that the prosecution has not proved anything. The evidence is the survival of a Manichean story that was created by the Vietnamese in 1980, documents from the period are copies and certainly false, survivors are often liars, civil parties are liars who have not taken an oath. At no time when faced with the evidence presented by the prosecution does Nuon Chea concede that elements of certain crimes have been established.
Ms. Guiraud quoted some of the Nuon Chea responses in his final brief to the question of validity of torture at security centers, survivor testimony, the murders at S-21, the archives, the lists of the period containing dates of extermination, the testimony of S-21 personnel, and the 32 civil parties whose names of their relatives were found in the lists of the period containing the dates of their executions. Nuon Chea, through his lawyers said that all of the evidence was not credible, not reliable, and insufficient to prove any crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ms. Guiraud noted that the position of Nuon Chea and his counsel on Kraing Ta Chan is typical. On torture at Kraing Ta Chan: there is no evidence of serious injury or mental or physical suffering which would have been inflicted intentionally on the detainees. On the murders at Kraing Ta Chan, only two civil parties, who were not under oath, presented evidence related to murders, which as stated above is unreliable for lack of credibility. The problem is that Meas Sokha was a witness, and not a civil party. In the binary world of Nuon Chea, does the whole position of Nuon Chea fall apart because Meas Sokha took an oath, is now credible, and can corroborate the other witness? Ms. Guiraud recounted Meas Sohka’s testimony and a number of others. Finally, she noted, a witness statement does not need to be corroborated to serve as a legal or factual foundation.
On enslavement, Nuon Chea found that “the work required at cooperatives and at worksites were not forced labor, rather, they were lawful and even critical means, to rebuild the country and feed the population. Furthermore the working conditions failed to demonstrate the characteristics required for such conditions to constitute enslavement.” Twenty-six civil parties testified about the facts related to the worksites and the Tram Kok cooperative, and all described control over many if not all aspects of life that is the basis for enslavement, but they were all found unreliable by Nuon Chea.
On regulation of marriage, it is difficult to respond to Nuon Chea defense because he was speaking off-topic as he did not take SCC decision into account on other inhumane acts. First, the Chamber must keep in mind what the SCC said when it talked about conduct relating to marriage, which is much broader than the question of whether there was forced marriage or not. The civil parties explained that it is the conduct related to marriage in all its diversity. This issue assessed taking into account the totality of conduct. And second, when men and women married under DK, did they give full and free consent to Angkar to marry them? The defense has not yet addressed this question.
Ms. Guiraud next moved to her last point, which was comments on the individual responsibility of the Accused.
We have always considered that the way for civil parties to contribute to finding the truth is to focus on evidence that can contribute to the characterization of the crimes and we have left it to the prosecution to prove the culpability of the Accused.
Ms. Guiraud offered a few observations:
In their final brief, the Khieu Samphan defense said because the policies of the CPK such as they are presented through this trial and they do not adhere to the ideals in which he believed, Khieu Samphan contests strongly that he ever had the intention to commit or contribute to the commission of any crimes. Ms. Guiraud said that this court is not trying his ideology nor is it trying Leninism or Marxism. The facts are that stemming from an implementation of a rapid socialist revolution, with an emphasis on the rapidity, by a group of people and the Chamber must decide on the composite of the group.
Contrary to what the defense of Nuon Chea thinks, the identity of the JCE has not yet been decided and that is fully within the discretion of the Chamber. And when the Chamber considers this, it will need to compare the constitution and texts and the 12 main principles of the CPK with the real consequences that people suffered between 1975 and 1979. It is for this that Nuon Chea and Khieu Samphan must be held accountable.
The SCC was clear, the Chamber will need to ask the question was this crime encompassed in the joint enterprise, and this is a fact that takes into account all relevant circumstances. And SCC says that in order for a common enterprise to be criminal, the members must accept that a crime will be committed either as a goal or an inevitable consequence that must occur in order to achieve a goal or an eventuality that will be treated with indifference. The Chamber must ask if the goal of achieving the rapid socialist revolution through the implementation of five policies, specifically the regulation of marriage, if this joint project encompassed other inhumane acts related to the regulation of marriage. This was one of the means of achieving population growth. Chamber must decide if Nuon Chea and Khieu Samphan accepted this result and look at all of the circumstances of the relevant facts. The Chamber must also decide whether the Accused accepted that crimes related to the regulation of marriage would be committed, including treating the eventuality with indifference.
In his Nuon Chea complete rewriting of events, Nuon Chea concedes that Ta Mok, Pol Pot, Nuon Chea and Son Sen were a distinct group within the CPK. But nothing is said about the alleged crimes in the Southwest Zone. Nothing is said about what happened after the purges, When the cadres from the Southwest arrived at Trapeang Thma, when the militia and the long swords organized the massacre of the Cham, what is Nuon Chea’s version? In his version, all the traitors had been executed, so who was in charge of these acts? The Nuon Chea defense has not provided any explanation on this point.
Nuon Chea says he accepts his moral responsibility for events that happened during the DK and the suffering people had to bear. To be morally responsibility is to accept the consequences of one acts. It is accepting that a third party, this Chamber, will assign legal and criminal responsibility to these acts. Some would say that moral responsibility would be to ask for a punishment. In pleading for a total acquittal and contesting that the crimes existed, presents this Chamber with a total contradiction. In fact, he accepts nothing, to rewrite history at any price.
Ms. Guiraud yielded the floor to Co-Prosecutor Nicholas Koumjian next.
The prosecution will address several points raised by defense in oral and written submissions.
First, Mr. K discussed the prosecution arguments on genocide and how it applies to the Cham.
Nuon Chea said this charge against him violates the principle of legality because genocide was not legal at the time. Genocide was legal at the time as defined in the 1949 Geneva convention, including the five acts, and that the acts are not limited to biological destruction of the group, where individuals can live on but the group is destroyed. Also in relation to the genocide of Cham, Nuon Chea defense said that the Chamber excluded a security center from the Case 002/02 trial to their disadvantage, but neither defense asked to include it, and there was nothing about that site that would have been to their advantage.
Both defense teams said the Cham were arrested due to security concerns of the government, as if destroying the group under the guise of security concerns makes a difference. There is a difference between intent and motive, if the intent is to destroy the group, the motive does not matter. The destruction of Vietnamese and Cham was not done solely for security concerns. There was evidence of children and babies being killed at S-21 and Sihanoukville; children and babies do not threaten the security of the country in any way.
Also, the defense has said that there was a high-ranking Cham cadre in the CPK, but the prosecution case has been that the policy on the Cham evolved over time, and the Cham joined the Khmer Rouge movement in high numbers but over time, starting around 1973, the CPK secretly began a policy of destroying Cham culture and religious traditions. And Math Ly does not help the defense case, in which at a meeting with Pol Pot he said it would be nice to bury Cham with Cham traditions which are different from Khmer traditions. He said that Pol Pot replied that since you joined the revolution, the body will be buried as decided by the revolution. Math Ly also discussed what happened to his own family, saying that Pol Pot killed his wife, three of his kids, three of his in-law children, and nine grandchildren, three of whom were infants.
When Math Ly was asked, he said the Vietnamese were also targeted and even more badly than the Cham.
The Nuon Chea defense spoke about communism and socialism and how these theories are designed, and how cooperatives are often part of communist or socialist regimes. The Accused are not charged for their political ideology, and not for setting up cooperatives, but because they set up cooperatives and enslaved people there. The Accused are not charged because of their politics, many around the world are socialists or communists, but did not have the same results as the Khmer Rouge regime. Patrick Heuveline, an academic, said that the most recent demographic data to estimate the lives lost in the DK regime, and the number or excess deaths had to fall within the range of 1.2 to 2.8 million. The Accused are not here because of ideology, but because of the suffering that they caused.
Mr. K clarified when the Khieu Samphan defense said that the prosecution cited to S-21 confessions, but he said that the prosecution has never used confessions from a security center to prove anything. The document referred to is not a confession but a report that someone hid, and the other document is a Tram Kok district document listing names in the local communes. The number she cited was only cited for the fact of how the security centers worked that the statement was passed up the chain of command up to the senior leaders, for the proposition that every confession was noted and summarized.
Khieu Samphan defense said that the prosecution relied on wri’s [written records of interview] for the majority of their submission on the treatment of Vietnamese. In that section there are 534 footnotes, 513 times they cite to trial testimony. Nuon Chea defense said there was nothing in the documents to indicate a policy on Vietnamese, but they did not address Pol Pot’s speech to kill 50 million Vietnamese, there were not 50 million soldiers, that was the population of the country. In a document shown on screen, it reports searching for yuon aliens, and that more than 100 were smashed, including children. Mr. Koumjian said that this document says that lower official in the CPK are complying with the policy and they are killing them, including children. He also cited to a magazine in which it was said that not one seed of nearly 1 million yuon were left in the Cambodia.
On the challenge to the treatment of Buddhists, the defense said there were no witnesses for monks being defrocked, but Mr. Koumjian argued that there were witnesses. He cited to five or so witnesses who had been monks and disrobed at the time. He also referred to a statement that the CPK party wrote in a document that 90 to 95% of monks abandoned their monkhood and pagodas were abandoned and that 90 to 95% of monks will no longer exist so this layer of society will not cause any worry. Nuon Chea claims that this was voluntary choice of Cambodians, but it makes no sense, why would people abandon religion at a time they needed it most? Moreover, Buddhism is still practiced today and the only time it was not practiced was during the Khmer Rouge regime.
In discussing other inhumane acts, Mr. Koumjian explained that international law has said that we do not leave vacuums for cruel behaviors. He listed the various acts that courts have found to rise to the level of a crime against humanity: forced marriage, forced prostitution, cruel, humiliating, inhumane treatment, inflicting serious mental injury, inflicting deplorable conditions of detention, enforced nudity, and forcing family to witness cruel acts against their relatives. The Khieu Samphan defense argued yesterday that forced marriage does not rise to this level, but the court has heard testimony from these victims and it was traumatic for them, and many suffer from mental and sometimes physical scars for life. This conduct affect families, children from the families, is extremely serious and cruel conduct.
The two experts who testified on forced marriage selectively misrepresented what they testified. Peg Levine, it is true that she did not report the marriages as forced, because she worked very hard to not even ask if the people thought their marriages were forced. She testified that most of the interviews she conducted were done by her students who talked to friends of their parents and the protocols did not include asking if the couple had consented to the marriage. Despite this, some of the responses made it clear that these couples were forced to marry. Two men said they refused and were punished by hard labor. Five women did because they felt like they had to out of fear for being killed. Ms. Levine talked about a woman named Mony who was well educated and was told to marry an uneducated man, she did not want to but she did because her father said Khmer Rouge would kill him if she refused.
The other witness, Kasumi Nakagawa, said she started her research on sexual violence. When asked by defense about CPK policy, she said the research was not investigating anything about policy but my follow up researchers confirm a pattern of forced marriages that were forced during the Khmer Rouge time in the parts of the country where she was researching.
Nuon Chea defense had asked if a village chief forced a couple to marry today, would the prosecution hold the current regime accountable, and Mr. Koumjian said of course not, because this is not happening throughout the country.
At one point Nuon Chea challenged that the prosecution said that DK deceived Vietnam to gain a negotiation advantage. Mr. Koumjian cited to the meeting minutes which reflect exactly what the brief says which is that they were buying time to build their forces.
Another statement Nuon Chea criticized and attributed to the prosecution was actually attributed to the author in the brief, so misquoted.
Both defenses have attempted to justify the crimes of the regime. In the Nuon Chea brief, they claim that there is a legal basis to arrest and detain people because of a suspicion of unlawful activities and that they have a right to kill those they suspected for disloyalty to regime. Khieu Samphan claimed that security centers were a firm response to rebellious movement and would isolate individuals deemed dangerous to DK stability. Mr. Koumjian said that they would isolate people by killing people and burying them in mass graves.
In interviews with Thet Sambath, Nuon Chea has refused to apologize for S-21 even though his niece and others close to him were sent there. Approximately 18,000 individuals were detained there. Nuon Chea has taken different positions in an attempt to evade responsibility. In a media interview, he said there was no S-21, because if it existed, he would have been informed and he would have heard about it. While he sometimes expresses his moral responsibility and his concern for those who suffered, those are crocodile tears. Mr. Koumjian says that Nuon Chea makes no apology for S-21.
Moreover, Nuon Chea has tried to shift the blame for S-21 onto others, like Vietnam and the United States. Mr. Koumjian showed video of the interview, and they said it was not the Vietnamese who ran Kraing Ta Chan or S-21 or the cooperatives. In a second video clip, Mr. Koumjian notes that Thet Sambath brought former DK soldiers who admitted to doing mass killings, and the cadres asked Nuon Chea why he ordered the killing and why their own commander was killed. Cadre asked who ordered it, he had heard it went up to Pol Pot, but didn’t know. Nuon Chea says it was the Vietnamese and United States who killed Khmer, and it wasn’t Khmer killing Khmer.
On the last day of trial in Case 002/01, in his speech Nuon Chea said “I never met, never supervised or ordered Duch to mistreat or kill anyone. Everyone should be aware that soldiers or security personnel would never listen to anyone besides their own commanders. Therefore, there is no reason that Duch should listen to me.” Next, Nuon Chea claims to never have heard Duch’s name until after 1979. This contradicts many other things that Nuon Chea has said, including conversations with Thet Sambath in which he told Sambath that he had discussed Duch with Ta Mok, that Ta Mok had warned him about Duch, and he talked about how Duch had come to Nuon Chea with a confession about Khieu Samphan and said Duch was not happy with me because I was always check his mistakes.
Mr. Koumjian said that Nuon Chea is always trying to avoid his responsibility, especially his responsibility for S-21 for which he has no excuse.
Nuon Chea does not deny killings at S-21, but claims that those killings are legally justified, that the party had the right to kill anyone they considered disloyal, with no trial or process, and then blame it on a security policy and point to being overthrown, as therefore they must have a real national security issue that justified killing people. Mr. Koumjian noted that the Nazis lost, but that did not justify their crimes, the Ottomans lost, the Hutus lost, and none of this justifies their crimes. Just because the Khmer Rouge lost to Vietnam, that does not the Khmer Rouge crimes. Another way defense tries to justify their crimes is saying that there were rifts and competing factions within the party. This does not justify the crimes. They said that this Chamber was biased against them when you asked about the relevance of this evidence. That is why they objected so strongly to the question, because they could never explain the relevance. All courts at all times have a duty and a right to ask about the relevance of evidence.
The accused would claim that the killings were done by the other factions of the regime that was disloyal to Pol Pot. Mr. Koumjian noted that all of the crime sites but one were operated by the people closest to Pol Pot, like S-21, Kraing Ta Chan, the Tram Kok cooperative, and more. At the one site that was operated under an alleged competing faction person, when that person was replaced, some people say things got worse.
Nuon Chea claims a right to extrajudicial killings and there is no such right under international law. There is no case to cite that says you can kill a civilian in detention without any trial. Once a person is captured they are not taking an active part in hostilities, for a civilian this is limited to the time that they are in action.
The DK was literally a lawless state. They had a Constitution and no laws, they had a parliament that was responsible for passing laws, and they passed none.
Not blaming defense lawyers, because they have to play the hand they are dealt. Constitution says that “dangerous activities in opposition to the people’s state must be condemned to the highest degree.” This is not a law. This is not a criminal law. It is no basis for extrajudicial activities.
Next Mr. Koumjian identified the kinds of “existential threat” it reacted to, a rally of one hundred members were arrested for raising banners that said “long live Buddhism.” (This also shows that the regime absolutely prohibited Buddhism and that it as a gentle religion was incompatible with its policies, and the people were killed for their belief.) Graffiti in a division that said “Small fry eats little, big shot eats a lot” it was against against corruption and inequality led CPK to conclude that entire division was to be detained and executed.
Next, Mr. Koumjian reviewed Nuon Chea’s discussion of the ICCPR Article 4. This article the discusses derogation of certain responsibilities can occur in a state of emergency, and when a state invokes article 4. This is completely inapplicable to crimes against humanity in cases like this. The covenant requires that the state officially declare a state of emergency, there is no evidence that ever happened. This allows for rule of law when it is needed most, when you want to control a state and prevent abuses. The kind of derogation when a state of emergency is declared. Mr. Koumjian next cited to two cases, in which a court found that holding a person for 14 or 11 days without seeing a judge was not allowed even in a legitimate state of emergency.
Moreover, this convention can never apply in a criminal case, as “state parties may in no circumstances invoke article four of the covenant as justification for acting in violation of humanitarian law or peremptory norms of international law, for instance by imposing collective punishments through arbitrary deprivations of liberty or by deviating from fundamental principles of fair trial including the presumption of innocence.” As Duch and others said in DK, all arrested were presumed guilty. And further, “If action conducted under the authority of a State constitutes a basis for individual criminal responsibility for a crime against humanity by the persons involved in that action, article 4 of the Covenant cannot be used as justification that a state of emergency exempted the State in question from its responsibility in relation to the same conduct.”
The Geneva Conventions, particularly Article 3, are the absolute minimum standards that apply to all conflicts, internal or international.
Another European court of human rights case was cited in Nuon Chea brief, said that “even in the most difficult circumstances, such as the fight against terrorism and organized crime, the convention prohibits in absolute terms, torture and inhumane or degrading treatment…. No derogation is permissible even in the event of a public emergency that threatening the life of a nation.”
It is not surprising if there was an uprising in the DK to the regime, and the regime was wildly unpopular as it had come to power through armed force and deception (pretending that King Sihanouk was in the front and always intending to sideline him). But a regime cannot kill opponents just to stay in power. The prosecution acknowledge resistance to the regime and listed a number of examples. Evidence shows resistance, even dissent, was very limited because of the terror imposed by the regime.
Mr. Koumjian finished his presentation for the day. Judge Nonn adjourned court until tomorrow at 9 a.m. where rebuttals of prosecution will resume. There will be no afternoon hearing.