VZCZCXYZ0015
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHPF #0395/01 1631244
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 121244Z JUN 09
FM AMEMBASSY PHNOM PENH
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 0825
INFO RUCNASE/ASEAN MEMBER COLLECTIVE

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