VZCZCXRO4048
RR RUEHCHI RUEHDT RUEHHM RUEHNH
DE RUEHPF #0472/01 1910954
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 100954Z JUL 09
FM AMEMBASSY PHNOM PENH
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 0920
INFO RUCNASE/ASEAN MEMBER COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PHNOM PENH 000472 
 
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: The Trial of S-21 
Interrogation Center Head Kaing Guek Eav, week 11 
 
REF: PHNOM PENH 412 AND PREVIOUS 
 
¶1.  (SBU) SUMMARY:  Embassy staff routinely observes 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) (Reftel).  This report summarizes the eleventh week 
of activities inside the court at the Khmer Rouge Tribunal. 
Translation issues continued to plague the court this week, and 
questions of proper vetting of civil parties emerged.  For more 
technical accounts of the proceedings, the KRT Trial Monitor has 
weekly reports.  Soft copies of KRT Trial Monitor reports may be 
downloaded from www.csdcambodia.org; www.kidcambodia.org and at 
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~warcrime/.  END SUMMARY. 
 
¶2.  (SBU) Herewith are observation notes for the week beginning July 
6, 2009. 
 
Monday, July 6: There were about 200 people in the audience, mostly 
male, and mostly Cambodian.  Only twenty observers returned after 
the lunch break. 
 
The judges referred to several administration issues relating to 
witness testimony schedules for the remainder of the trials.  These 
included deciding who to remove from the witness list, how those 
witnesses would be removed, and calculating the timing for testimony 
to cover the week. 
 
Translation issues at the trial continued this week.  At one point, 
the English translator seemed confused about what was said by the 
defense counsel and asked her to repeat it closer to the microphone. 
 He also misunderstood and incorrectly translated some of the 
questions and testimony.  One of the civil party lawyers, Alain 
Werner, stated that he had a problem with some documents referred to 
by the Accused as they were never provided in English to the civil 
parities.  However, he was chided by Judge Cartwright who told him 
that everyone in the court was working under difficult conditions 
and that surely he had able Cambodian co-lawyers who would be able 
to translate the documents for him.  Mr. Werner responded that he 
had an unofficial translation but never had an official or certified 
document made available to him, even after several requests. 
 
Mr. Ly Hor provided civil party testimony about his time in Tuol 
Sleng prison.  However, the validity of Mr. Hor's testimony was 
challenged by the Accused.  Mr. Hor's civil party application seemed 
to contradict his oral testimony.  Mr. Hor also had trouble 
recalling dates and times regarding his detainment and even his 
communication with the civil party lawyers and DC-CAM.  At one 
point, he was asked about the military regiment he joined before he 
was captured by the Khmer Rouge.  Mr. Hor could not give his 
division or supervisor during his military service, something that 
caused the audience to react with murmurs of surprise or concern. 
His confusion prompted Judge Sylvia Cartwright to warn the civil 
party lawyers to better prepare their clients before bringing them 
to court.  Duch was extremely prepared and, citing several documents 
and S-21 records, pointed out discrepancies between the witness's 
testimony and his paperwork. 
 
Tuesday, July 7:  There were about 200 people in the morning 
session, and about 150 in the afternoon.  The morning session 
focused on testimony by civil party Ly Chan, who alleged that he had 
been held in S-21 for three months on charges of stealing rice. 
Judge Nil Nonn asked the Group 3 civil party lawyers if they had any 
documentation to support Ly Chan's claim that he had been held in 
S-21.  A lawyer for civil party Group 3 replied that his team had 
been unable to find documentation but had questions that could shed 
more light on Ly Chan's imprisonment.  However, when it was the 
civil party lawyers' turn to ask questions, they only asked if Ly 
Chan had noticed any changes in the site when he visited after 1979, 
as well as questions about the number of guards and the conditions 
under which he was forced to dig pits for a banana plantation.  The 
defense team vigorously questioned Ly's claim that he had been held 
at S-21, and Duch stated he doubted Ly Chan's testimony that he was 
held at S-21, as his name was not on any of the S-21 records. 
 
The afternoon session focused on testimony by another civil party 
witness, Phork Khan, who said he had been arrested in 1977 and held 
in Tuol Sleng before being taken to Choeung Ek. 
 
Judge Nil Nonn referred back to Phork Khan's submitted written 
statement regarding his imprisonment, in which he claimed Duch had 
threatened him and personally ordered the execution of his group at 
Choeung Ek.  Judge Nil Nonn noted that Phork Khan's written 
statement was in "stark contrast" to his testimony in court.  Phork 
Khan admitted that the claims in his written statement were not 
true, and that his spoken testimony in court was the truth.  Judge 
Nil Nonn asked Phork Khan if he was literate, and if he had written 
the complaint himself, or if he had had help.  Phork Khan said that 
he had written his statement in his home village with the support of 
an ADHOC [local human rights NGO] representative. 
 
PHNOM PENH 00000472  002 OF 002 
 
 
 
The international lawyer for Group 3 acknowledged that civil party 
witnesses had submitted "less than precise" written statements, but 
emphasized that the witnesses' testimony in court was what was 
important.  She continued that the written statements had been 
gathered by human rights groups, who were not trained in gathering 
statements for the court, but had nevertheless helped to identify 
victims to join the civil case. 
 
The week ended with two other civil parties providing testimony 
which was challenged by the court.  The testimony deviated from the 
original civil party applications, raising concerns that the 
applications had not been thoroughly vetted. 
 
Rodley