SO Socheat alias Rin
Pseudonym: TCW-673
Cases: Case 002/01
Category: Witness
Background and role
So Socheat, alias Rin,
1
is Khieu Samphan's wife.
2
She testified in Case 002/01 as a character witness on behalf of her husband.
So Socheat’s parents were farmers in Kok Poun village, Srae Thum commune, Rovieng district of Preah Vihear province.
3
After the 1970 coup d’état, she attended study sessions and later joined the local resistance movement as a village medic.
4
In mid to late-1971, she joined the movement against the Lon Nol regime in the jungle where she worked as a cook and provided assistance to the medical staff.
5
So Socheat first met Khieu Samphan at S-71, when she was asked to carry a meal to the table where he, Pol Pot, and Nuon Chea were dining.
6
She married Khieu Samphan on 25 December 1972.
7
At the time of the marriage, she only knew Khieu Samphan as “Brother Hem” and was not aware of the role he played in the Khmer Rouge.
8
In the Cambodian tradition, housewives were not supposed to know everything their husband’s had to do or interfere in their work.
9
So Socheat claimed that she only asked her husband about his work after hearing their daughter pretend to talk on the phone after visiting her father’s workplace.
10
She also maintained that she never knew that her husband held high-level positions in the Democratic Kampuchea regime.
11
When confronted with Khieu Samphan’s statement that she was the head of the kitchen, So Socheat maintained that she was merely a cook.
12
Events prior to April 1975
So Socheat first claimed that Khieu Samphan spent a month with her and their new-born son after returning from China.
13
She later claimed that Khieu Samphan returned to Cambodia one month after the birth of their son and stayed with them for several months.
14
So Socheat also claimed that her first son was born on 4 May 1974.
15
When confronted with a document she had previously prepared which stated that her son was born on 6 June 1974,
16
she maintained that he was born on 4 May 1974.
17
Initially, she claimed that the document was incorrect since her son had used “6 June 1974” as his date of birth in his ID card and she decided to use the same date in said document.
18
Later, however, she claimed that the commune clerk present at the registrar’s office told her that if she could not precisely recall the date of birth that she could put down an approximate date.
19
She then decided to use the date of birth found in her son’s birth certificate.
20
She also stated that it is common in Cambodia for people to change their date of birth.
21
The Trial Chamber relied in So Socheat’s testimony as well as other evidence in determining whether Khieu Samphan attended a meeting in June 1974 where leaders of the Communist Party of Kampuchea finalised plans for the liberations of Phnom Penh and the forced evacuation of its inhabitants.
22
Considering the conflicting accounts as to when Khieu Samphan returned from China and how long he stayed with So Socheat after the birth of their first son, as well as her motivation to assist her husband, the Trial Chamber did not find So Socheat’s testimony about Khieu Samphan’s whereabouts reliable,
23
and concluded that Khieu Samphan was present at the June 1974 meeting.
24
Events after April 1975
So Socheat left the jungle one week after the Khmer Rouge took over Phnom Penh on 17 April 1975.
25
Khieu Samphan left 10 to 15 days prior.
26
She went to Sdok Taol, where she and Khieu Samphan met overnight.
27
She then worked as a cook in a train station in Phnom Penh for approximately one week.
28
After leaving the train station, So Socheat headed to the Silver Pagoda where she stayed for some months.
29
She and Khieu Samphan later lived at K-1.
30
Khieu Samphan and most of the other leaders moved to K-3, and she moved there as well after delivering her second child.
31
She recalled that she and Khieu Samphan lived at K-3 until the arrival of the Vietnamese in 1979.
32
So Socheat claimed that she and Khieu Samphan lived at K-3 with other senior leaders of the regime for approximately four or five months before all other leaders, except Khieu Samphan, left K-3.
33
However, the Trial Chamber was not persuaded by her testimony, considering that no other witnesses who recalled seeing Khieu Samphan living with senior leaders at K-3 mentioned this exodus and that, in an interview, Khieu Samphan stated that he lived in close quarters of the senior leaders.
34
Statement on Khieu Samphan’s character
So Socheat described Khieu Samphan as an educated person, who was gentle, kind and patient.
35
She also claimed that Khieu Samphan was not a cruel person and that it would be out of character for him to perform degrading acts.
36
The Trial Chamber considered So Socheat’s testimony as a character witness during sentencing.
37
However, it gave limited weight to her testimony as a mitigating factor in sentencing, considering that Khieu Samphan’s purported good character did not play any significant part in mitigating crimes of the severity of those for which he was found guilty.
38
Videos
