By Stéphanie Gée
Kambol (Phnom Penh, Cambodia). 12/08/2009: Many Cambodians, who came from the countryside, attend Duch’s trial each day (pictured: a villager before an ECCC screen)
©John Vink/ Magnum
Mrs Bou Thoeun, a survivor of Prey Sar (S-24), took the stand on Wednesday August 11th to recount the hell she went through and offered a rare moment of intense emotion. She threw her indelible wounds, probably suppressed until then, at the tribunal, reminding each and everyone why it was created and placing the victims back at the heart of Duch’s trial. The accused was not impervious to these outbursts of suffering and anger, and declared he was ready to offer himself to his compatriots’ wrath and accept the punishment they would like to impose on him.
Anlong Korn, a component of Prey Sar
“I suffered a lot because I was beaten. Because I did not manage to do what I was asked to do, I was mistreated. I was between life and death. Only I survived. My daughters and other relatives are dead and I found myself alone after the end of the Khmer Rouge regime.” From the start of her testimony, Mrs Bou Thoeun, who belonged to the “new people,” the “April 17th,” soberly summarised her personal tragedy. Shortly after her husband, carrier at the Ministry of Energy, “disappeared” in 1977, she was sent to Anlong Korn, South from Prey Sar, “in some kind of transit for prisoners before they were divided between different sites.” One month before, she had given birth to a fourth child. The accused later explained that Anlong Korn “was an important office, that is where Huy was stationed, the director of Prey Sar, which included this village.
A devastated witness, separated from her relatives for ever
“I said things out loud,” she remembered. Her honesty and spontaneity have remained with her since, but under Democratic Kampuchea, they almost cost her life. Such audacity could only be perceived as counter-revolutionary tendencies. She came close to dying when, upon seeing bananas on an empty stomach, she exclaimed: “It would be nice to eat them.” The comment caused her to be hit and she still bore the scars of it today, the plump and strong 64-year-old woman said, who was not afraid of looking at her interlocutors in the eye.
When the Khmer Rouge regime fell, Mrs Bou Thoeun did not dare to return to her native village, “alone,” without her husband or children, who were all dead. “Yet, losing relatives was not something you could be ashamed of because everybody was in that case.” Gradually, her tone rose. Tears ran down her face, while she wiped them as they came.
“I suffered enormously. And I don’t want to remember all those things. When Duch claimed he had not killed anyone, I was not convinced because many people were killed at S-21 and Choeung Ek. My husband and children met their death in those places. And my uncle, who was a head monk, advised me to forgive. But now, I am alone and when I do farming, I am alone. Why should I continue doing that? I have no one left to work for anyway. My husband and children are dead. My mother told me to try and take things a little better, but I am here before this Chamber so that justice is given for my husband and children. Every year, I go to Choeung Ek to pray for their souls.” Her voice was firm, uncompromising and dominated by tinges of anger. It was the voice of the just. She offered her suffering to the public with nobility, poise and beauty. Out of the blue. No one would dare to interrupt her.
“Why were young children killed?”
After Pol Pot’s regime collapsed, when she discovered hair of dead bodies in the Choeung Ek execution site, she thought she recognised that of her daughters. She fainted under the shock. “I don’t know why young children were killed. […] If I had not resolved to study the Dharma, I would have found myself in an extremely serious psychological state. I am certain that my children were executed at Choeung Ek and you can see my husband’s photograph at Tuol Sleng [museum]. I keep the memory of my husband and children. I am not forgetting them. I was given a copy of my husband’s picture, but I don’t want to revive the memory of this suffering but try and overcome it, as hard as it may be. […] The time has come to heal the wounds.”
S-24: a prison and not a re-education centre
At Anlong Korn, Mrs Bou Thoeun explained, they were considered “as enemies” and therefore treated as prisoners. Every night, some of them disappeared and never came back. The international co-Prosecutor, Vincent de Wilde, interrogated her on the conditions in which she remained in this “wall-less prison,” as he put it. “If I say that in reality, you had no right, no freedom, and you could not take any decision by yourself, is that correct?” Mrs Bou Thoeun agreed. “So, were you under the absolute control of the people who directed S-24 and kept you under surveillance?” “Yes, we were under total control. We were watched all the time. And whatever our work, we were deprived of any right. We could not communicate amongst ourselves and we had to comply with the orders we were given. We had no right to contest anything at all.” There, all day and night long, the “enemies” of the revolution had to grow rice and plant vegetables, which they produced in great quantities but were not destined for them, as they survived on an insufficient diet.
“During that time at S-24, did you feel considered or respected as a woman, as a human being?” The witness’ answer was immediate: “How could I say they respected me as a woman and human being since, when they talked to us, they did not even look at us in the eye! I was completely dehumanised. My life was in their hands. They could take any decision, even to kill me when they wanted to.”
A seemingly inappropriate question to the witness
Ty Srinna, for civil party group 1, launched into a surprising interrogation of the witness. “Have you ever injured someone intentionally? And if that is the case, have you felt remorse?” Mrs Bou Thoeun did not understand the meaning of the question well, but let her common sense do the talk. “I never hurt anyone, so how can I answer your question? All my life, I made good actions. Of course, someone who causes harm must feel remorse.” The president seemed as puzzled and invited, appropriately, the lawyer to limit her “personal or hypothetical questions” and “go straight to the point.”
The fate of intellectuals and students called back to the country
The lawyer then turned to the accused to ask him to shed light on the reason that motivated Democratic Kampuchea to call back to the country Cambodian students based abroad, to then send them to S-21 or elsewhere. Mrs Bou Thoeun’s husband had then whispered to her that as soon as they arrived at Pochentong, these students were immediately sent to S-21, a detail she had reported to the Documentation Centre of Cambodia (DC-Cam) in an interview in 2004. Duch eluded. “This topic is disconnected from the suffering this witness has endured. So, it is difficult for me to answer.” But the president urged him to reply.
©John Vink/ Magnum
The accused complied. “Regarding Cambodian students and intellectuals from abroad, the procedure was as follows: initially, they were sent to a re-education centre and then to S-21, following the analysis, opinion and decision of the hierarchy, Pol Pot in particular. […] Yes, indeed, they were sent to S-21. As time went by, the policies carried out by Pol Pot became more pernicious and cruel towards intellectuals.”
“I don’t know who to turn my anger to”
Kar Savuth resumed the interrogation. “Can you explain us why you said that Duch didn’t kill anyone with his own hands?” “I said that because I did not see him do that. If I had seen him beat or kill someone, I would have said so. But what do you want me to tell you? “If executioners did not execute, well, they would have been executed themselves. They had to obey the orders. In your opinion, who in the chain of command is your anger turned to?” “No, I don’t know who to turn my anger. That is why there are judges and lawyers here: to give justice. Now, Pol Pot is dead. Who can be blamed? I call to the competent authorities, to the judges, to render a just decision.”
The accused accepts the punishment of his fellow citizens
Time for the observations of the accused. First, he called Mrs Bou Thoeun’s testimony “truthful” and recognised “the years of suffering” she endured. “Every year, the witness goes to Chhoeung Ek to pray for the souls of people who were executed. For the millions of Cambodians who lost their husbands and wives under that regime, I must express my regrets for these sufferings. And the tears that run from my eyes are the tears of those innocent people. I want to be close to Cambodians. It matters little if they condemn me, even to the heaviest sentence. As for the Christ’s death, Cambodians can inflict that fate on me, I will accept it. I would say that my fate cannot be compared to all those lives lost during that period. I accept the blame for all those mistakes, all those crimes, before the Chamber and before the witnesses.”
In the first reference to Christianity since the start of his trial – the accused converted to this faith (he was baptised by U.S. evangelists in 1996 –, Duch seemed to turn his forgiveness into expiatory sacrifice by evoking the death of Jesus.
Silke Studzinsky, co-lawyer for civil party group 2, interrupted Duch. “The words of the accused are unsettling the witness, so that they are hardly bearable for the witness and we can clearly see that. I would invite the Chamber to intervene…” But Duch was not done. The president let him continue, but invited him not to stir the witness’ painful memories any more. “The reason why I am reminding the suffering of Mrs Bou Thoeun’s and the suffering of so many people throughout the country, is to remind here what I already told the Chamber: that the crimes that took place in Cambodia are a little like an elephant and they cannot be hidden with a bucket. […] Independently from the scope of these crimes, I am not trying here to shy away from the responsibility that is mine for all the lives eliminated under the Khmer Rouge. […] Back then, we thought that the Vietnamese had invaded or were preparing to invade Cambodia. […] I will accept the ruling pronounced against me by the Chamber for the role I fulfilled as S-21 director and for the crimes that were committed there. […] Today, I stand humbly before the Cambodian people and I accept their condemnation and any sentence that is decided. I wish the Cambodian people to speak frankly and honestly, as Mrs Bou Thoeun did today.”
(translated from French by Ji-Sook Lee)
Prey Sar, a prison that does not say its name
In the afternoon, the minutes of the hearing of witness Mrs Pak Siek were read. The latter joined the revolution in 1972 because she was told “they were going to free the nation and allow King Sihanouk to return to the country.” In 1977, she was arrested and taken to Prey Sar where she was informed upon arrival: “You must know that traitors to the nation are imprisoned here and this is a re-education centre. If you successfully rebuild yourself, you will stay alive, otherwise you will die.” The witness described Prey Sar as an ensemble of fields and villages where the prisoners were housed, in individual houses, locked from the outside at night. They were grouped according to gender and their marital status, and divided into working brigades of fifteen to twenty people. There was also a brigade comprising of children and one of elderly people.
In case of discipline breach, the witness reported, the prisoners could be placed in “building 14,” where they were “chained” and “hit.” Mrs Pak Siek also evoked “a cell where electric shocks were inflicted” upon prisoners, something she was told about. She never witnessed abuses inflicted to prisoners.
She saw Duch at Prey Sar, during a meeting late December 1978. He introduced himself to them and talked about “the Eastern and Northern zones and the soldiers who had betrayed them and rallied the Youns [Vietnamese].” “He said he regretted ordering the execution of good comrades. He had later understood they were not traitors but that their superiors were the traitors.” When the Vietnamese arrived on January 7th 1979, she continued, “Duch and his unit came to transfer Prey Sar prisoners to Omlieng,” in Kampong Speu province. According to her, he allegedly ordered the execution of twenty-five people, but six of them, including herself, were released. The defence contested this point, recalling that during the flight, there was no longer any command. As for Duch, he recognised there was a “temporary detention centre” at Prey Sar, but no interrogation room as such. The accused had “the impression that this person may not be the person who endured the sufferings at Prey Sar.”
Baku, another face of Prey Sar
Then, it was up to the minutes of the hearing of witness Kang Phan, S-21 staff member assigned to “Baku,” under the authority of Prey Sar, a place reserved for the farming production and construction of canals. He was the chief of a unit in charge of re-educating twelve women, “all intellectuals,” and to monitor several dozens children, separated from their parents, high officials under the previous regime and accused of being members of traitors’ networks. He assured there was no torture or executions at Baku. However, “if the re-educated did not succeed in re-educating themselves, they were sent to S-21.” The people in re-education regularly participated to meetings presided by Huy Srè, whose house was in that place, for purposes of farming production.
“Baku was not surrounded with a fence, but watched by guards, who were Huy’s messengers,” the witness described. “[…] Nobody managed to escape from Baku.” Except in the first year, everyone in re-education received enough food to eat.
“I saw that people were arrested to be transferred from Baku to Tuol Sleng, in covered trucks, at night, every seven to ten days. […] I believe that the order on the transfer of people in re-education in Baku came from S-21 and not Huy. He only followed S-21’s order. […] Everyone in re-education at Baku, even the children, believed they were going to be executed because nobody came back…” The witness finally claimed he saw Duch come twice to Baku in 1978.
The accused did not question the testimony.
(translated from French by Ji-Sook Lee)
Also on Ka-set 
Bou Meng, long-term detainee in S-21, stirs trouble in Duch (02-07-2009)
- David Chandler: “Obedience plays into the horror of it all” (10-08-2009)
- Vann Nath, first survivor to testify, shares his hope for justice but interrogation misses the mark (30-06-2009)
- Is Duch’s trial set on the wrong track? (29-07-2009)
- Duch: "Do you see me as a new person?" (29-06-2009)
0 comments:
Post a Comment