Cable 415: US Embassy Report on Trial of Khmer Rough Leader in Cambodia

8/6/2019 Cable 415: US Embassy Report on Trial of Khmer Rough Leader in Cambodia

1/8

P 121244Z JUN 09

FM AMEMBASSY PHNOM PENH

TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 0825

UNCLAS PHNOM PENH 000395

SUBJECT: Khmer Rouge Tribunal: A Day in the Trialof 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 atypical 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


2/8

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 weeklyreports. 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" andto 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


3/8

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, butsometimes 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 wasbased, 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


4/8

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 haddocuments (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 the party

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-21for 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."


5/8

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, thatsome 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 wastrying 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


6/8

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 discussionwas 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 continuequestioning 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 accusedwas 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.


7/8

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 lawyerreplied 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 theafternoon, 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


8/8

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

Documents

Cable 415: US Embassy Report on Trial of Khmer Rough Leader in Cambodia