VZCZCXRO9147
RR RUEHCHI RUEHDT RUEHHM RUEHNH
DE RUEHPF #0573/01 2230043
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 110043Z AUG 09
FM AMEMBASSY PHNOM PENH
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 1042
INFO RUCNASE/ASEAN MEMBER COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PHNOM PENH 000573 
 
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 15 
 
REF: PHNOM PENH 539 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 15th week of 
activities inside the court at the Khmer Rouge Tribunal.  More 
technical accounts of the proceedings can be found at: 
www.csdcambodia.org; www.kidcambodia.org and at 
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~warcrime/. END SUMMARY. 
 
Vocal Week for the Defense 
-------------------------- 
 
¶2.  (SBU) This week the Court continued its questioning and 
testimony of former S-21 staff, in an attempt to further outline the 
working conditions, procedures, and treatment of detainees at the 
prison.  The defense attorneys and the defendant himself raised 
issues with the submission of written testimony on behalf of three 
witnesses.  Defense lawyer Kar Savuth noted that written testimonies 
heard in Court so far had differed from live testimonies given by 
the same witnesses.  Duch went so far as to call one of the 
statements, given by former S-21 photographer Nhem Eng, a "lie" and 
accused the witness of embellishing his role at the prison and 
"boasting". 
 
Expert Witness: "To Understand Does Not Mean To Accept" 
--------------------------------------------- -------- 
 
¶3. (SBU) Historian David Chandler offered testimony based on his 
research on the Khmer Rouge and S-21.  (NOTE: Chandler wrote one of 
the most extensive histories of the notorious prison, "Voices from 
S-21".  END NOTE.)  Unlike earlier witness testimony, many of the 
questions posed to Chandler addressed larger, sometimes 
philosophical issues, such as why S-21 existed and whether Duch was 
truly remorseful for his actions.  The defense team questioned 
Chandler regarding the notion of "crimes of obedience", again trying 
to establish that Duch ran S-21 under fear of disobeying his 
leadership.  Chandler agreed that no one could say what they would 
have done in Duch's situation, but added that it did not make the 
defendant's actions any more commendable.  "To understand does not 
mean to accept," he testified. 
 
¶4. (SBU) Herewith are observation notes for the week beginning 
August 3, 2009: 
 
Monday, August 3: 
 
Increased Number of Observers Brought In From the Provinces 
--------------------------------------------- ---------- 
 
There were approximately 450 observers during the morning session, 
and approximately 300 observers during the afternoon session.  After 
the afternoon break, only 30-40 observers remained, as many of the 
Cambodian observers were from rural areas and left to return home 
before evening.  The Cambodian observers were mostly from Takeo, 
Kampot, and Kampong Chhnang provinces.  They seemed to come 
together, as they arrived in large groups at the same time.  About 
100 foreigners were in the audience. 
 
Questioning of Former S-21 Staff Continues 
------------------------------------------ 
 
The court heard testimony from two witnesses during the day's 
proceedings.  In the morning session, Mr. Sek Dorn, a former medic 
at S-21, answered questions about the general situation and health 
of the detainees.  The questions appeared geared towards assessing 
how serious the prison's interrogation tactics were, and if there 
were any survivors. 
 
Mr. Lap Meas, a former S-21 guard, testified in the afternoon 
session.  Judge Ya Sokhorn asked Lap Meas questions about how he got 
his job at the prison, his general duties, interrogation practices, 
and if Lap witnessed any killings or physical abuse of the 
detainees. 
 
Overall the proceedings seemed to run smoothly.  However, the judges 
had to repeat themselves during Sek Dorn's testimony, because the 
witness had difficulty understanding the questions.  The prosecution 
and defense lawyers required extra time for witness questioning. 
The translation was well done. 
 
Tuesday, August 4: 
 
There were approximately 350 observers in the audience, who were 
mostly Cambodian.  The group was evenly divided between men and 
women.  Several audience members said they were from Takeo Province, 
and a few said they were from Phnom Penh.  There were about 25 
foreigners in the morning session, and about 15 in the afternoon. 
 
PHNOM PENH 00000573  002 OF 002 
 
 
 
The morning session saw testimony from Mr. Lach Mean, a former guard 
and interrogator at S-21.  The witness clearly answered all the 
questions posed to him, and he seemed to recall his time at S-21 
well.  There were a few points where he had some difficulty 
understanding the translation and had to ask the interpreters to 
repeat themselves. 
 
Defense Protests Use of Written Statements 
------------------------------------------ 
 
In the afternoon session, there was no live testimony. Rather, the 
court clerk read written testimonies from three witnesses:  1) Mr. 
Khiev Chet, a former S-21 guard; 2) Pes Math/Ly Try, a former S-21 
guard; and 3) Mr. Nhem Eng, a photographer who took pictures of the 
Khmer Rouge leaders, as well as detainees in S-21. 
 
Throughout the day there were several small administrative issues. 
At one point, Presiding Judge Nil Nonn stopped the proceedings and 
complained when Co-Prosecutor Anees Ahmed stood and spoke without 
permission.  Nil Nonn had to stop civil party lawyer Silke 
Studzinsky when her time for witness questioning ran out.  She 
requested one final question for the witness after Nil Nonn stopped 
her, which he allowed.  The judges also had to consult amongst 
themselves on three separate occasions. 
 
Defense lawyer Kar Savuth protested the use of written testimonies 
as evidence and requested that the Court bring the witnesses to 
testify in person instead, noting that live witness testimony had 
differed so far from original written statements.  Duch also refuted 
Nhem Eng's written testimony, saying that the photographer was 
embellishing his role at the prison.  Nil Nonn denied the defense 
request however, arguing that all the parties had agreed to use the 
written testimonies to save time for live testimony by the more 
important witnesses. 
 
Wednesday, August 5: 
 
Approximately 350 observers attended the day's proceedings.  The 
majority of the participants were Cambodians from Kampong Cham 
Province.  There were about 20 to 25 foreigners in the audience. 
 
Cheam Sour, a former security guard at S-21, was the only witness. 
He testified that he saw a person being burnt alive with car tires 
at the prison.  There was a lot of repetition in the questioning of 
the witness, although the translation seemed to be good.  The 
witness seemed to forget some of the details about his experience, 
as he sometimes provided differing answers to the same questions 
when they were repeated multiple times.  Duch refuted the witness' 
testimony, saying that he had only ordered the burning of dead 
bodies, not live prisoners. 
 
The court then heard several civil party statements, which were read 
out loud by the Prosecutor.  The statements included a question and 
answer record between investigators and the witnesses. 
 
Thursday, August 6: 
 
There were approximately 500 observers, mostly Cambodians from rural 
areas.  The audience remained quiet throughout the proceedings but 
appeared to be interested in the testimony. 
 
Noted Historian Testifies as an Expert Witness 
--------------------------------------------- - 
 
History professor David Chandler of Monash University in Australia 
testified as an expert witness during the day's proceedings.  (NOTE: 
Chandler wrote one of the most extensive histories of the notorious 
prison, "Voices from S-21".  END NOTE.)  The judges asked Professor 
Chandler several questions regarding his research, often referring 
to specific pages of his book to clarify certain statements or learn 
about his sources of information.  Unlike his reactions to earlier 
witnesses, Duch was very brief and respectful in his statements 
regarding Chandler's testimony. 
 
The proceedings ran smoothly overall, aside from some issues with 
translation.  Professor Chandler spoke very quickly at times and the 
translators had difficulty keeping up with him.  The judges reminded 
Chandler twice to speak more slowly so that his statements could be 
accurately translated into the two other languages.  One of the 
lawyers also asked a question very quickly, causing some confusion 
in the translation, but this was caught and corrected. 
 
 
 
RODLEY