ECCC Trial Chamber Resumes Hearing on Documentary Evidence with Testimony of DC-Cam Director Youk Chhang

Transcript

Trial Footage:

English

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4

Khmer

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4

French

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4

Youk Chhang, director of the Documentation Center of Cambodia, begins his much-anticipated testimony at the ECCC Wednesday.

“Reading a document is like finding a piece of cooked rice in the mud –  it is sweet.”
- DC-Cam Director Youk Chhang

On Wednesday, February 1, 2012, the Trial Chamber of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) began hearing the much-anticipated testimony of Documentation Center of Cambodia (DC-Cam)[1] director Youk Chhang.

Trial Chamber President Nil Nonn began the proceedings by asking Mr. Chhang a series of preliminary questions. During this questioning Mr. Chhang indicated that he had obtained a Master’s degree and speaks Khmer and English proficiently and also speaks some French, Thai and Laotian.

The President then reminded the parties to limit their questioning to the documentation processes utilized by DC-Cam and to focus first on general questioning, rather than exploring specific DC-Cam documents. The floor was then turned over to the prosecution to begin its questioning.

Prosecution Questioning

National prosecution counsel Chan Dararasmey then began by asking about Mr. Chhang’s educational background. Mr. Chhang explained that he obtained his undergraduate degree in political science in Dallas, Texas, in the United States (US). He also received training in documentation at Yale University and has participated in numerous other short-term trainings and conferences.

When asked about his time in Thailand, Mr. Chhang explained that he lived in a refugee camp there. While in Thailand, he worked with humanitarian organizations and studied both Thai and English languages. When asked how he came to live in the US, Mr. Chhang explained that he sought to be admitted to the US as an independent refugee without any assistance from family members already living there. Mr. Chhang chose the US as a destination because his family members had worked for the US-backed Lon Nol government and had hosted numerous US journalists in their house in Phnom Penh when Mr. Chhang was a child. As a young boy, Mr. Chhang admired these journalists, especially one tall, highly educated woman he looked up to and sought to emulate.

Mr. Chhang next explained that he chose the US as his preferred destination while living in Thailand and that when he was asked at the time what State he wanted to move to in the US, Mr. Chhang responded that he wanted to live where US President John F. Kennedy had died, because Mr. Kennedy was a hero of his for promoting civil rights. This was the reason that Mr. Chhang moved to Dallas, Texas.

National Assistant Prosecutor Chan Dararasmey leads
the prosecution’s questioning of witness Youk Chhang.

President Nil Nonn then interjected and asked the prosecution to move on to the substance of the hearing and to avoid asking such open-ended questions. Chan Dararasmey then asked when Mr. Chhang returned to Cambodia. Mr. Chhang indicated that he returned to Cambodia and worked with UNTAC [the “United Nations Transitional Authority of Cambodia”] as part of its election unit in Kampong Speu province. Following this work, Mr. Chhang returned to the US and worked at the International Republican Research Institute (IRRI).

Next, Mr. Chhang was asked about the beginnings of DC-Cam. Mr. Chhang explained that this was a long story which began with the work of Professor Gregory Stanton. He explained that Mr. Stanton started the Cambodian Genocide Project in 1980 as the first effort to research the crimes of the Khmer Rouge. Next, various other researchers, such as Ben Kiernan, David Chandler and Steve Heder began to investigate the Khmer Rouge history. Mr. Chhang then stated that he heard about the research project of Mr. Stanton in 1986 or 1987 and became interested in the history of the Khmer Rouge movement. He also testified that in 1989 he joined an international campaign in Texas to prevent the return of the Khmer Rouge to power in Cambodia. This campaign was overseen by Craig Etcheson, who currently works for the ECCC Office of the Co-Prosecutor (OCP).

Mr. Chhang then stated that the main purpose of DC-Cam is to compile Khmer Rouge documents in order to seek reconciliation in Cambodia. He explained that DC-Cam had three strategic objectives when it was created: first, to assist in the creation of a court to ascertain the truth concerning the Democratic Kampuchea (DK) period; second, to ensure that Cambodian students study a full and accurate history of the DK period; and third, to create a permanent institution dedicated to the study of the Khmer Rouge.

The prosecution then asked about articles and books published by Mr. Chhang, who explained that he has written many articles published in various newspapers but has not written many scholarly articles or books because he is busy administering DC-Cam’s day to day work.

As for conferences and meetings, Mr. Chhang explained that he has traveled to many countries to attend forums where he gave talks about the Khmer Rouge experience in Cambodia.

Mr. Chhang explained that in a previous article he had argued that the ECCC should be stationed in Cambodia and not in the Hague, Netherlands. He also stated that he had been interviewed by numerous international media outlets and that these interviews can be found by simply searching “Youk Chhang” on the Google internet search engine. He then provided a long list of news agencies that have interviewed him in the past.

Next, the prosecution asked about DC-Cam’s funding sources and donors. Mr. Chhang explained that the Center has been financed by numerous donors and its largest donor has been USAID. He noted that DC-Cam has a core endowment of US$4 million and has received various types of funding. He noted specifically that the Swedish government provided approximately US$300,000 specifically to support DC-Cam’s work in scanning documents to provide to the ECCC. Mr. Chhang then provided an extensive list of the countries that have provided DC-Cam with funding over the years. He also noted that DC-Cam has its own accounting team and has been audited several times, stating that the Center has been found transparent in its use of funds through these audits. Mr. Chhang also noted that USAID is especially stringent in its accounting requirements. Mr. Chhang also singled out France, as an outlying country that has not provided support to the work of DC-Cam.

The prosecution then asked about DC-Cam’s activities working with other similar centers. Mr. Chhang explained that DC-Cam is a member of an “Affinity Group” of documentation centers. This group meets yearly and consists of members in Guatemala, Iraq, Rwanda, Burma and other post-conflict countries.

Mr. Chhang then testified that he has also travelled to the Hague, where he visited the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). During this visit, Mr. Chhang was struck by the fact that the staff was mostly drawn from Western countries, despite being an international tribunal. He asked ICTY staff how Cambodians should seek justice for the crimes of the Khmer Rouge but was apparently told just to wait for the creation of a tribunal.

He also stated that he attended numerous conferences on transitional justice issues, where he was irritated by the lack of participation among women. During this time, Mr. Chhang decided that, while Cambodia needed assistance from the rest of the world in seeking justice, it was up to the victims themselves to initiate and own this process.

Michael Karnavas, international counsel for Ieng Sary, objects to the prosecution’s questioning of the witness.

Ieng Sary defense counsel Michael Karnavas then rose and apologized for “interrupting [Mr. Chhang’s] forty-minute answer.” He stated that much of Mr. Chhang’s testimony involved “blabbering” about irrelevant matters. He noted that the prosecution cannot ask for more time to question Mr. Chhang and asked the Chamber to direct the prosecution to limit itself to strictly relevant matters during questioning.

Chamber President Nil Nonn agreed with Mr. Karnavas and stated that the prosecution had already “wasted” one hour of questioning. He then instructed the prosecution “again” to focus its questioning on the relevant matters.

In response, Chan Dararasmey asked Mr. Chhang about DC-Cam’s documentation process. Mr. Chhang stated that DC-Cam received documents from various sources and, to date, has received approximately one million pages of documents. Mr. Chhang further testified that he had personally inspected every document before it is processed and archived, explaining that “reading documents is like having breakfast for me.” Mr. Chhang stated that, after he examines each document, it is forwarded to his deputy director Peoudara Vanthan to be scanned and archived.

After some unclear questions from the prosecution, Mr. Chhang sought to clarify through some questions of his own. This prompted President Nil Nonn to instruct Mr. Chhang that his role was solely to testify and that he should not question the prosecutor.

Mr. Chhang then sought to clarify what he perceived as some misunderstanding during the previous week’s testimony of Peoudara Vanthan.[2]

This prompted another objection by the Ieng Sary defense, and Mr. Karnavas argued that Mr. Chhang should not be allowed to comment on Mr. Vanthan’s previous testimony but should be limited to discussing DC-Cam’s procedures and processes. The Chamber then asked Mr. Chhang to be short and responsive to each question.

Mr. Chhang moved on, explaining that documents are collected by all DC-Cam staff when they conduct work in Cambodia’s provinces as part of a “collective effort.” He noted that he is informed of every document collected and has read “many, many” of the documents collected, some of them several times. Mr. Chhang then explained that he enjoys studying documents, especially photos, stating that, to him, “reading a document is like finding a piece of cooked rice in the mud –  it is sweet.”

When asked about his expertise in reading documents, Mr. Chhang explained that he does not consider himself a “high-level expert” but has twenty years of experience working with these documents. He also explained that he has the advantage of understanding the Khmer language and culture, which helps him to understand clearly the content and context of the documents. Mr. Chhang stated that he can “immediately” recognize a Khmer Rouge document due to the specialized language used.

As for categories of documents, Mr. Chhang explained that DC-Cam internally considers both hard copy original documents and copies of contemporaneous DK period documents (such as the so-called “Black Paper”) as “originals” in cases where the true original document is held overseas. He clarified that the originals of the latter category of documents are not held by DC-Cam but at various international institutions and universities.

Regarding the process of verifying the authenticity of purported contemporaneous DK period documents, Mr. Chhang explained that DC-Cam studies:

1.     the paper used and whether it is weathered and discolored or new-looking;
2.     signature lines or names mentioned in the text of documents;
3.     the topics discussed in the documents; and
4.     any specialized language used in the documents.

By considering these factors in totality, Mr. Chhang stated that DC-Cam is able to determine the authenticity of each document with confidence.

At this point, Chan Dararasmey concluded his questioning of Mr. Chhang, and the Chamber prepared to take its morning break. As has become typical at this point in the day’s proceedings, counsel for Ieng Sary rose and requested that Ieng Sary be allowed to retire to the courtroom holding cell to observe the proceedings via audio-visual link. The Chamber granted this request and reminded the defense to provide a signed waiver of Ieng Sary’s right to be present in the courtroom.

Following the break, international prosecution counsel Tarik Abdulhak took up questioning of Mr. Chhang. Mr. Abdulhak began his portion of questioning by asking about the main sources of the documents DC-Cam has received.

Mr. Chhang explained that DC-Cam has collected documents from numerous branches and levels of the Cambodian government as well as individual donors and foreign governments. When asked about the ratio of original documents held by DC-Cam, Mr. Chhang explained that the Center holds numerous originals and copies of originals but noted that, for copies, the original documents are archived elsewhere. He noted that, in particular, Sweden holds a large number of original documents, the copies of which are held by DC-Cam.

As for documents collected from the Cambodian Ministry of the Interior, Mr. Chhang stated that these documents were mostly paper documents and some video footage, along with a few photos. He further explained that Ben Kiernan had named this archive the “Santebal[3]” archive because the documents therein largely concern internal security issues of the Communist Party of Kampuchea (CPK) during the DK period. He also noted that the Khmer word Santebal appears on many of the documents.

He further testified that the documents were collected by DC-Cam but some of the documents were damaged and/or misplaced, so he continues to visit the archive and search for documents. Upon further questioning, Mr. Chhang explained that, in the 1982 or 1983, the documents sourced from the Ministry of the Interior were discovered in a house near the US embassy in Phnom Penh. These documents were subsequently transferred to the Ministry of the Interior. He further testified that there is no clear information about who had lived in the house in question during the DK period. Mr. Chhang also testified that he has identified the specific individuals who transported the documents from the house to the Ministry offices and has provided a list of these names to the ECCC Office of the Co-Investigating Judges (OCIJ).

When asked about the general contents of the Ministry archive, Mr. Chhang explained that the archive contained two kinds of biographies – those of detainees arrested throughout Cambodia, as well as the biographies of cadres who were not arrested.

As for confessions from the Ministry archives, Mr. Chhang stated that there are about 4,000 confessions from the approximately 12,000 detainees at Tuol Sleng prison among these documents. However, there were approximately 1,000 other confessions found in the Ministry, and these confessions differed from those found at Tuol Sleng. Mr. Chhang stated that these confessions are generally much longer than the ones found at Tuol Sleng and were drawn from various prisons throughout Cambodia and not only Tuol Sleng. He further noted that some of the confessions were from important figures, such as Koy Thuon[4], and had a cover page that did not appear on Tuol Sleng confessions. Mr. Chhang then explained that it is easiest to identify confessions annotated by Tuol Sleng commander Duch, as he signed his name on his annotations. However, he noted, other confessions were marked with more cryptic annotations, as those who took the confessions utilized revolutionary aliases.

He then mentioned a specific confession that had four-to-five separate annotations on the cover, including those by Duch and “Khiev” (alias of Son Sen). As for the term Santebal, Mr. Chhang observed that Ben Kiernan speaks very good Khmer and is even able to swear in Khmer. According to Mr. Chhang, Mr. Kiernan’s language proficiency led him to notice the word “Santebal” written on the cover page of many of these confession documents, leading him to refer to the entire group of documents as the Santebal collection (see above).

Next, Mr. Abdulhak turned to the topic of CPK correspondence found in the Ministry archives. Mr. Chhang stated that there were various types of correspondence, including meetings of minutes between Ieng Sary and foreign delegations and follow up correspondence related thereto, along with letters between CPK officials.

Mr. Chhang stated that he remembered vividly one specific letter authored by a female Khmer Rouge cadre in which she requested permission to obtain an abortion from CPK authorities because she believed her unborn child was an “enemy.” She explained in the letter that she had committed “an immoral act” and was afraid of being executed. This letter was found attached to a file indicating that she was later arrested by the CPK.

The next topic discussed was documents labeled “Lon Nol documents.” Mr. Chhang explained that he was very surprised when he found these documents, because they were in a box labeled “Republic Government” (Lon Nol government). However, when the box was opened, it contained Khmer Rouge documents, and Mr. Chhang believes that whoever had labeled the box had made a mistake. These documents are therefore referred to internally at DC-Cam by the confusing term “Lon Nol documents.”

Mr. Abdulhak then asked whether Mr. Chhang believed the documents found at the Ministry were original documents. Mr. Chhang affirmed that these documents are believed to be originals from the DK period, based on the age of their paper, content and specific language used. He also noted that these documents have been compared to a large number of other documents held by DC-Cam and that, as a whole, the group of documents are consistent with both one another and other known contemporaneous DK period documents.

Mr. Chhang then revisited the documentation process utilized by DC-Cam, explaining in detail how documents move from his desk to the Center’s archives, while being copied and catalogued along the way. He further stated that when individuals approach DC-Cam and ask for certain types of documents, the Center creates a folder on the topic, so that it can conveniently fulfill subsequent similar requests.[5] Mr. Chhang further explained that the Center provides hard copies to visitors, rather than relying on the internet or computers, as Cambodians from the countryside do not use computers and want hard copies to bring home with them.

Returning to the issue of searching for documents from the National Archives, Mr. Chhang explained that he has visited the Archives numerous times because documents are not well filed and are sometimes lost. He explained that, in one instance, he found more documents at the archive after reading research by Ben Kiernan and noted that he then provided all these documents to the ECCC Defense Support Section (DSS). At the National Archive, Mr. Chhang stated that he found numerous types of documents, including a large commerce dossier from the DK Ministry of Commerce, which discussed trade and other issues, such as rice price lists. Mr. Chhang also testified that these documents have been confirmed as originals because former DK Commerce Minister Van Rith affirmed that the documents are genuine before he died. Also, Mr. Chhang stated that the commerce documents form a coherent narrative when viewed as a whole, citing ,as an example, a set of documents on the cultivation and transport of rice throughout DK.

Next, Mr. Abdulhak asked Mr. Chhang to comment on documents collected by David Hawk as part of the Cambodia Documentation Commission during the post-DK period. Mr. Chhang stated that this collection included photographs from Tuol Sleng prison and of mass graves. The Tuol Sleng photos were original from the DK period, he stated, while Mr. Hawk himself took the photos of the mass graves. He explained that the archive also includes documents prepared by Mr. Hawk himself. Mr. Chhang then explained that the entire collection from Mr. Hawk has been transferred to DC-Cam.

Regarding originals of documents found at Tuol Sleng, Mr. Chhang explained that DC-Cam did not take any originals from Tuol Sleng but that other individuals had provided some original documents sourced from Tuol Sleng to DC-Cam, which are stored in the Center’s fire-proof cabinets. Mr. Chhang then explained that DC-Cam has a formal, though generally positive, working relationship with the administration of the Tuol Sleng museum.

Mr. Chhang next testified that on one occasion he obtained permission from the Tuol Sleng administrator to personally clean a room believed to be full of “rubbish” by the Tuol Sleng staff. In this room, Mr. Chhang found numerous “overlooked” documents, including photographs and nearly 400 Tuol Sleng staff biographies. He also stated that some documents from Tuol Sleng were found in other locations, such as private houses, and that some documents were lost in the early days of the museum, because collecting such documents was not prioritized at the time. Mr. Chhang explained during this testimony that documents were not valued in post-DK Cambodia, as the emphasis was largely on daily survival and immediate needs. He stated that, during this time, Khmer Rouge documents were even treated like old newspapers or banana leaves and used to wrap-up food and snacks, such as fried bananas. These documents were then casually discarded, he maintained.

Nuon Chea Retires to the Holding Cell at his Customary Time

This concluded the morning portion of Mr. Chhang’s testimony. As usual, just prior to the break, the Nuon Chea defense informed the Chamber that Nuon Chea wished to be excused from the afternoon session due to health issues. The Chamber then granted this request and reminded the defense of the need to submit a signed waiver from Nuon Chea of his right to be present in the courtroom.

International assistant prosecutor Tarik Abdulhak concludes the prosecution’s examination of Youk Chhang.

Prosecution Concludes its Questioning of Youk Chhang

Following the lunch break, Mr. Abdulhak continued questioning Mr. Chhang and turned from general questioning to exploring specific documents from DC-Cam’s collection displayed on the courtroom monitors.

While the documents were prepared for viewing, Mr. Abdulhak asked Mr. Chhang if the Center assisted parties at the ECCC to search through its holdings. Mr. Chhang explained that each party has a designated day of the week to work at DC-Cam’s offices and also receive assistance in searching for documents from the DC-Cam staff.

When shown the first document, Mr. Chhang explained that the annotations on the document referred to DC-Cam’s internal document numbering system and also indicated the date the document was received from Sweden.

The prosecution then displayed the cover page of a Revolutionary Flag booklet, which Mr. Chhang identified as a scan of the original, noting that the original was red. He further testified that he has read the booklets and DC-Cam holds some originals, while some are housed at Tuol Sleng museum. He explained that he had read the booklets DC-Cam holds, which all contained specialized Khmer Rouge phrases that are very distinctive and would not be used in modern Cambodia. He further testified that DC-Cam holds approximately 20 to 25 of the 36 total editions of Revolutionary Flag published by the CPK.

The next document displayed was identified by Mr. Chhang as a biography of a detainee collected from the Santebal collection (discussed above).

The fourth document displayed was identified by Mr. Chhang as a DK period biography. Mr. Chhang explained that this biography was of an individual Khmer Rouge cadre, but not of a detainee, noting that such biographies are of a different type. He explained that, according to his knowledge, these biographies were actually autobiographies that detailed the author’s revolutionary history and were written by cadres every six months during the DK period.

The fifth document displayed was identified by Mr. Chhang as being sourced originally from the Cambodian National Archive. Mr. Chhang then read out the first lines of the document, which was a report to “Brother Hem” about a meeting between CPK officials and a Chinese delegation.

The sixth document displayed was identified by Mr. Chhang as a report from the DK Ministry of Commerce naming certain individuals sent for reeducation and the reason therefor, such as one individual being lazy and not wanting to do any work. Mr. Chhang explained that the document was found at Tuol Sleng and that documents from all throughout DK were found at the prison.

The seventh document was identified by Mr. Chhang as a document sent to “Office 870.” Mr. Chhang further stated that, although the document displayed is a scan of the original, he had personally held the original document in his own hands.

The eighth document displayed was written in English and entitled “Confession of a Vietnamese Spy.” Mr. Chhang responded that he could read the document out but preferred to use the Khmer language, which is his mother tongue. He then noted that his mother was probably watching the proceedings on television, and he did not want to confuse her. Mr. Chhang then identified the document as being received by DC-Cam from Sweden in 2007.

The ninth document displayed was a notification that the East Zone had submitted a report on enemy activities in the area. Mr. Chhang identified the named recipient “M 870” as the “secret code” for the office of the CPK leadership.

The tenth document displayed was from the “Lon Nol” category of documents (see above) and was entitled “Weekly Report of Sector 5 Committee” and dated May 21, 1977. Mr. Chhang explained that Sector 5 was where he lived during the DK period and the Sector was in Battambang Province about five kilometers from Banteay Meanchey province. The document was apparently transmitted to the Zone Secretary of the Northwest Zone and also “M560,” though Mr. Chhang was unsure what the latter code referred to.

The eleventh document displayed was as a May 1977 report and was also sent to office “M560,” Mr. Chhang explained.

The twelfth document displayed had been redacted to obscure the name of a witness. Mr. Chhang recognized the document as a scan of an original CPK telegram. When Mr. Chhang was asked about the annotations on the document, Ieng Sary defense counsel Michael Karnavas stood and objected, arguing that the prosecution was straying from the Chamber’s instructions to question Mr. Chhang solely on methodology and was actually seeking to authenticate specific documents.

In response, Mr. Abdulhak stated that the prosecution would simply move on to the next question, and the thirteenth document was displayed. Mr. Chhang identified the document as being entitled “Permanent Meeting,” stating that it appeared to be the minutes of a high-level CPK meeting. Mr. Chhang explained that the document was received from Ben Kiernan and contained the annotation “Ben” on it. He further explained that DC-Cam received a photocopy of the document from Ben Kiernan, but there are disagreements between various researchers regarding the current location of the original documents and who originally provided each document.

Next, Mr. Abdulhak asked Mr. Chhang if he has ever doubted the authenticity of purported DK period documents. Mr. Chhang indicated that he had doubted only one document, which concerned the kidnapping of foreign tourists in 1994 by Khmer Rouge forces. He stated that he rejected the document because the language was incompatible with Khmer Rouge phrasing and the source of the document refused to reveal the identity of the original author of the document.

This concluded the questioning of the prosecution, and the Chamber announced the afternoon break.

Counsel Pich Ang questions the witness on behalf of the civil parties.

Civil Party Questioning of Youk Chhang

Following the break, the floor was turned over to the civil parties to question Mr. Chhang. Upon questioning by civil party counsel Pich Ang, Mr. Chhang stated that the goal of DC-Cam is to “reconcile the nation” and, in order to do so, it is necessary to “seek the truth.” He then reiterated the three subsidiary goals of the Center (see above).

Mr. Karnavas then objected again, stating that the questioning of the civil parties was straying into a general exploration of “grand notions” of justice and reconciliation. This objection was sustained, and Chamber President Nil Nonn instructed the civil parties to ask questions solely related to the documentation work conducted at DC-Cam.

Pich Ang then moved on to a series of brief questions, first asking Mr. Chhang whether DC-Cam considers its work “investigating” the crimes of the DK period. Mr. Chhang responded that he cannot answer the question with a simple “yes” or “no” but that he considers his work to involve investigating the history of the DK period. He also stated that DC-Cam has no legal or judicial mandate to do such work.

Next, Mr. Chhang sought to clarify the confusion that arose during deputy director Peoudara Vanthan’s testimony regarding “analysis” of documents. Mr. Chhang stated that much of this confusion was based on the different meanings and contexts of the Khmer language. He further explained that DC-Cam has collected and read the documents to better understand the DK period history but does not consider this “analysis.”

Mr. Chhang also testified that DC-Cam does not select only important documents to collect from large archives but seeks to collect and store any documents from the DK period.

As for his personal memory of documents, Mr. Chhang stated that he had read many documents but could not instantly recollect all of the documents. He explained that, if shown a document, he can recognize it and recall its general contents quite well.

Pich Ang then sought to question Mr. Chhang using a printout of a webpage from DC-Cam’s public website but then simply moved on to the next question when the Chamber asked for clarification about the document.

Upon further questioning, Mr. Chhang testified that DC-Cam freely provides documents to all parties at the ECCC without preference, stating, “I will provide all documents that are requested . . . I try to establish a clean institution.”

Mr. Chhang was then asked why France has not provided funding to DC-Cam, as he had previously testified. Mr. Chhang stated in response that “France is a difficult country” that “does not pay any attention” to the issue of documenting the DK history. Mr. Chhang then stated he was therefore “surprised” when France sought to be a co-sponsor of the ECCC.

At this point, the Chamber President interjected again and chided civil party counsel Pich Ang, stating that the questioning had once again veered off-topic and that this is especially improper when the civil parties always request additional time allowances to question witnesses.

Next, international co-lead lawyer Elisabeth Simonneau Fort took over questioning for the civil parties and asked Mr. Chhang about a statement he had previously made to the OCIJ asserting that, in the 1990s, he had received threats against the safety of both himself and his sister from Ieng Thirith.

This question prompted an immediate objection from the Ieng Sary defense, which argued that the question was wholly irrelevant to DC-Cam’s documentation processes.

Ms. Simonneau Fort responded by arguing that the Chamber had previously indicated previous sworn statements by witnesses could be used during questioning and that the question was directly relevant to determine whether any person sought to prevent DC-Cam from providing documents to the Court.

Mr. Karnavas then responded by arguing that the Chamber cannot allow parties to simply explore any subject they wish, otherwise the trial may devolve into a “runaway train” of irrelevant matters.

Ms. Simonneau Fort responded by arguing that the statement by Mr. Chhang was directly relevant to the issue of DC-Cam’s documentation work and efforts to provide the ECCC with documents. The Chamber overruled the objection and directed Mr. Chhang to answer.

Mr. Chhang affirmed that there was a threat made against his elder sister predicated on his documentation work, and he stated that, at the time, his sister asked him to stop his work for their mutual safety. Mr. Chhang then testified that he did not stop his work because he believed that the pursuit of reconciliation in Cambodia was too important.

Ms. Simonneau Fort then asked Mr. Chhang whether DC-Cam’s stated commitment to combatting impunity in any way colors the work of DC-Cam regarding the collection of documents. Mr. Chhang responded that these goals do not influence the Center’s collection of documents and, to ensure this, DC-Cam makes efforts to maintain documents in their original form, so they can be assessed fairly.

Upon further questioning, Mr. Chhang stated that documents from various sections of the DK governments ended up scattered in unrelated offices most likely because the documents were reports that were transmitted from one CPK ministry to another. Moreover, Mr. Chhang further testified that DC-Cam seeks to collect any document from the DK period, because every piece of information from the DK period is of historical significance. He continued that this includes collecting CPK propaganda documents, such as songs, that tout the achievements of the DK government.

When asked about the process by which the defense teams were allowed to access documents, Mr. Chhang responded that the teams are allowed to view the documents in DC-Cam’s archives but are instructed not to bring any food or drink into the room to prevent damage.

Ms. Simonneau Fort then asked whether the defense teams appeared to be satisfied with receiving copies of original documents. This triggered another objection by Ieng Sary defense counsel Michael Karnavas, who argued that the question was “absolutely objectionable” and that he “should not even have to be on [his] feet” to object to it.

The Chamber upheld the objection, and Ms. Simonneau Fort asked her final question about the degree of cordiality between ECCC parties and DC-Cam. Mr. Chhang responded that, thus far, the experience working with all parties has been positive and collegial.

Chamber President Nil Non then announced the day’s adjournment and stated that the defense teams would be provided two days in total to question Mr. Chhang. The proceedings will continue Thursday morning at 9 a.m. with the cross-examination of Mr. Chhang by the defense teams.