Khmer Rouge Tribunal: A Day in the Trial of S-21

UNCLAS PHNOM PENH 000395 SENSITIVE SIPDIS STATE FOR EAP/MLS, P, D, DRL, S/WCI E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PGOV PHUM KJUS PREL EAID CB SUBJECT: Khmer Rouge Tribunal: A Day in the Trial of S-21 Interrogation Center Head Kaing Guek Eav SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED ¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY: Embassy is sending staff to observe the proceedings of the trial against the notorious Khmer Rouge torture center head, widely known as Duch, at the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC). Five judges (three national and two international) are presiding over the prosecution of Duch for crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, homicide and torture. Working under a special mix of Cambodian national (civil code) and international law that are bound together by the hybrid court's own special rules, the judges sit four days a week in trial and are now in week eight of the proceedings. The trial of Duch is expected to last through the summer. This report depicts a typical day at the court. Future installments will summarize each week's activities inside the court at the Khmer Rouge Tribunal. END SUMMARY. ¶2. (SBU) Embassy observers are looking at overall ECCC trial management issues and are noting what can be understood by a lay observer as well as the reactions of the Cambodian audience in the 500-seat auditorium looking into the ECCC courtroom through a Plexiglas window. For more technical accounts of the proceedings, the KRT Trial Monitor has weekly reports. KRT Monitor is a program of the Asian International Justice Initiative, a collaboration between the U.C. Berkeley War Crimes Studies Center and the East-West Center. This Program collaborates with the Cambodian NGO, Center for Social Development (CSD),to release the report. Soft copies of KRT Trial Monitor reports may be downloaded from CSD's website at www.csdcambodia.org ; www.kidcambodia.org and at http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~warcrime/. ¶3. (SBU) Herewith are observation notes for the trial day of June 9, made by our colleague from the Centers for Disease Control. MORNING SESSION: President Nonn opened the session at 9:00 with an announcement that the morning session would address implementation of the Communist Party of Kampuchea's (CPK) policy at S-21. He requested that people speak very slowly so that interpreters could "fully interpret for a complete report" and to provide reference numbers in all three languages (English, French, and Khmer),if available. Questions should be summarized and precise so the accused can understand and be able to respond properly. Questions that are repeated and out of fact are not recommended. He then gave the floor to the civil party lawyers - 19 attorneys who are divided into four groups and represent a total of 94 KR era victims or relatives of deceased victims. For much of the morning's questioning, Duch spoke calmly and mostly provided direct answers, but sometimes evaded the question and appeared to ramble. Throughout the proceedings, there was little reaction from the Cambodians (approximately 40) in the audience or inside the courtroom. About 110-120 persons attended the morning session. Questions and answers focused on CPK party principles and sources upon which the policy was based, definition of the term enemy; documentation (and dates of documentation and implementation) of principles, definitions, and special classes; purpose of interrogation at S-21 if persons sent there were already considered dead; internal conflict; horizontal communication, etc. Midway through the first morning session, President Nonn interrupted with a reminder about repeating questions, that an hour had already passed, and that the accused has the right not to reply to repeated questions. Duch was then asked to explain and provide concrete meaning to various slogans, some of which he claimed to have not heard but admitted they may have reflected the situation at the time. Additional questions were asked about documents used or decisions which may have influenced policy implementation. The civil party lawyer proceeded to ask a question about education for staff and subordinates to which Duch exercised his right not to answer, saying he had already answered the question. Duch responded at length to the same lawyer's questions about who was called Angkaa [Khmer word for "organization" used to depict Khmer Rouge] and about S-21 receiving some prisoners who had documents (list of names) attached. Again the lawyer requested clarification on the term enemies, and how many categories of ideological enemies or internal enemies, to which Duch replied that after 17 April [1975] they were mainly class enemies based on a philosophy of communist party theories. The next line of questioning was about [S-21] working conferences, followed by questions about releases. Duch denied that there were any releases - the policy was to interrogate and "smash" (Khmer Rouge term for execute). Only Pol Pot had the right to release but he never used that right. Duch contested expert witness Craig Etcheson's previously provided testimony that theparty ordered some prisoner releases, saying that if they were released, he would like to meet them so that they can accuse him and he can apologize. At this point he seemed annoyed and said, "I reiterate, there were no releases. Have belief in me. I would not use these words to hide the facts. You cannot use a bucket to hide a dead elephant." Duch was then asked how people were sent from S-21 for reeducation at S-24. Again he seemed annoyed, but calm, and explained, "If full-rights staff at S-21 made a mistake they were sent to Prey Sor for re-education. Do not call it S-24. For transport of prisoners to Prey Sor-it did not happen." Additional questions were asked about differences in the terms CPK "line" and "policy," and sending relatives of prisoners to S-21 (Duch admitted that he observed families coming together and if they were arrested, they were regarded as enemies). President Nonn turned the floor over to the defense counsel who asked about the number of staff at S-21 and about Duch's contention that expert witness Craig Etcheson had only two good points and that many points should be challenged. The discussion that followed was mainly about communication and chains of command, and about how some of Etcheson's comments were good but the footnote was wrong, that some paragraphs were confusing, and how he was surprised about information on released prisoners. He said he would not use a fabricated list of releases to hide his crimes. AFTERNOON SESSION: The afternoon session opened at 1:45. The audience was considerably smaller (approximately 40 throughout the afternoon) and appeared to comprise expatriates only. The defense counsel continued the line of questioning about policy implementation and Craig Etcheson's testimony, and it seemed that she was trying to show that Duch had a good understanding of party principles (he claimed to be the one who understood it best) but that he had no choice but to implement the policy-nobody dared to violate the policy-he did no more and no less and this is why he survived. The defense counsel then brought up the S-21 reconstruction/ reenactment visit Duch made in 2008 and his statement, "I am angered against myself who gave into other people's concepts and followed them completely." Duch responded with a very long discussion about his remorse and taking responsibility. This discussion was interrupted by a civil party lawyer who objected because it did not cover the subject of policy implementation and she asked the defense to come back to the issue. The defense responded, "When you were questioning the accused, we did not interrupt you. We would be thankful if he is allowed to proceed." President Nonn rejected the objection and advised the defense to continue questioning related to the facts to be placed before the chamber, i.e., implementation of policy at S-21. The defense requested the viewing of two extracts of video recordings made at the 2008 reenactment at Tuol Sleng which would take approximately 15 minutes. President Nonn requested elaboration to determine their relevance to KR policy implementation and that the viewing may be more appropriate during later discussion of other subtopics. The defense reported that the request was a logical follow up to earlier testimony and that the recordings show his statements and feelings about policy implementation. Judge Lavergne asked about the added value to which the defense counsel responded that it shows the accused was tremendously, deeply moved when he revisited S-21 and the sight of him feeling and seeing this is important. Judge Silvia Cartwright thought this might be important but had little relevance to CPK policy. At this point the judges and civil party lawyers were all talking among themselves. President Nonn asked the AV office how long it would take to set up the projection, and then asked the defense whether the excerpts showed any witnesses who have yet to show evidence, because they are still under a pseudonym, which may be a reason to defer until later. The defense lawyer replied that the word of caution was well taken and that she had not remembered if protected witnesses were on the video. President Nonn gave two options: cut the showing to the public or delay to a later date. The defense counsel agreed to postpone the showing of the video and had no further questions for the accused. President Nonn announced that the rest of the afternoon's session concerned armed conflict with Vietnam. A related topic was about when Vietnamese prisoners of war were first brought to S-21. President Nonn opened the questioning after which Duch was questioned extensively by Judge Silvia Cartwright. Most of the questions were about what he knew and when he knew it regarding armed conflict and where it was occurring. President Nonn announced that the testimony of witness KW08 about activities at Choeng Ek would be postponed because the discussion about policy implementation took so long. Judge Cartwright continued questioning Duch about armed conflict with Vietnam. Throughout the afternoon, Duch denied knowing anything about armed conflict and that he could not actually remember when prisoners of war arrived at S-21. He said that perhaps a few had arrived before 06 January 1978. When challenged (arrests had been made as early as 1976) about this and about transport of POWs from the battlefield to S-21, he said that he could not recall and could not provide any further information, but that the [prisoner] lists at S-21 would shed better light than his statements. Court was adjourned at 4:15 p.m. Rodley