Case 002 Witnesses, experts and Civil Parties

Nayan Chanda, 63, Director of Publications at the Yale Center for Globalization, testified as an expert on the issue of armed conflict, focusing on the Cambodian-Vietnamese conflict during the Khmer Rouge regime. 

He described the hereditary enmity between both countries, which was increased by disputes over border demarcations drawn first by the French and later by the United States.  During his testimony, Nayan Chanda drew an outline of the conflict, but when asked about whether an armed conflict existed between Democratic Kampuchea and Vietnam already from April 1975, he said: "I'm not a lawyer and have no idea about how one defines war... But if it means that one government has to announce to the world that, "We are at war", then I think war started with the announcement from Phnom Penh on December 31st, 1977."

Professor Craig Etcheson was called as an expert to testify on the implementation of the Communist Party of Kampuchea's (CPK) policy. Expert Craig Etcheson outlined the command structure of the CPK, identifying the Central Committee as its 'most powerful organ' and the Standing Committee as its executive body, exercising 'total control of the government'.

He told the Trial Chamber that Democratic Kampuchea organs were organized with absolute hierarchical authority and that the Party Centre exercised centralized control over communication. He described the CPK ideology as being based upon principles of 'centralism', 'collectivism', and 'independence mastery'. Expert Craig Etcheson then described S-21 as the penultimate node in the power pyramid of DK.

He argued that S-21 was a unique security center for several reasons: it had the authority to arrest individuals from the entire territory, it was designed to smash the highest ranking individuals, it had the greatest number of staff members, confessions and interrogation procedures were far more elaborate, and its Chairman directly reported to the upper echelon on a daily basis. Expert Craig Etcheson described the Accused as an innovator, a creator, a developer and an institutionalizer of the methods of making very detailed confessions that are extracted over long periods of time. He argued that purges were both driven by the paranoia of the CPK Standing Committee and the zeal of the Accused. He further identified the Accused as the principal trainer of torture techniques.

Chan Khan was called as a witness to testify about M-13, a security office located in areas under Khmer Rouge control, which had been supervised by Kaing Guek Eav.  

In 1973, Chan Khan was recruited as a teenager to be a soldier, but he was instead sent to M-13 to work as a guard. He remained there until late 1973 or early 1974, when he was sent to work in the rice fields of Oudong with other warders and prisoners. As a witness, Chan Khan testified on detention conditions at M-13 with specific regard to medical care therein. He recalled that many detainees died because of a lack of health care and that they did not receive treatment for wounds from interrogations.

Over the course of his testimony, inconsistencies between the witness's testimony and the statements he had made before the Co-Investigating Judges were raised.

Chan Voeun, 56, was called as a witness to testify about M-13, a security office located in an area under Khmer Rouge control, which had been supervised by Kaing Guek Eav.

Mr. Voeun claims to have been a staff member of M-13 in his twenties, working in the economics unit from 1974 to 1975. Formerly assigned to find food for prisoners, he told the Trial Chamber that he was only present on M-13 premises once or twice a month. Because he allowed three detainees to escape while on guard duty, he recounted that he was arrested and imprisoned by Duch at M-13. He then escaped to his commune, was sent back to M-13 by his village chief, and subsequently set free b Duch. As a witness, Chan Voeun testified on the detention conditions, interrogation methods, and executions at M-13. He told the Trial Chamber that many villagers from Amleang sub-district, including his uncle and his aunt, were detained at M-13 and that he was hated by Amleang villagers for working with Duch. He testified that he personally witnessed Duch carrying out interrogations and torturing detainees. Duch also allegedly shot his uncle dead with an AK-rifle. The Accused contested the testimony from the witness and also denied that the witness had been a staff member of M-13. 

Over the course of his testimony, inconsistencies between the witness' testimony and the statements he had made before the Co-Investigating Judges were raised.

Uch Sorn, 72, was called as a witness to testify about M-13, a security office located in an area under Khmer Rouge control, which had been supervised by Kaing Guek Eav.

In 1973, Mr. Sorn was accused of being a spy and detained at M-13 for one year, where he was forced to perform maintenance work including sweeping, gathering wood, and digging graves. In October or November 1974, he was liberated and sent to Pursat province, but only returned to his home village in 1979. As a witness, Uch Sorn testified on the detention conditions at M-13. He told the Trial Chamber that emotional and physical torture was inflicted upon the prisoners, including torture and starvation.

Uch told the Trial Chamber that the other detainees were ordinary people from his village and not high-ranking military officials and that guards were very young, between 15 and 20 years old.

Francois Bizot, 69, professor of the French School for Oriental Studies, was called as a witness to testify about M-13. 

While conducting research on Cambodian Buddhism in Oudong in October 1971, Mr. Bizot and his two Cambodian colleagues, Kom Hok Ly and Kong Son, were arrested by Khmer Rouge soldiers and transferred to M-13. There he was detained in a bamboo storage place apart from the approximately fifty other detainees - primarily peasants from Khmer Rouge controlled zones - who were shackled in three huts. Francois was accused of being a CIA agent and was interrogated daily by the Accused himself. He was liberated on 25 December 1971, but his two colleagues remained at M-13 and were later executed. As a witness, FranÁois Bizot described the detention conditions at M-13. He recounted how the Accused admitted to beating detainees because it was expected of him, although he did not enjoy it.

He told the Trial Chamber that the Accused had the reputation of being hardworking and dedicated. According to him, the Accused's job mainly consisted of drafting reports on the prisoners sent to him for execution.