During the hearing on Tuesday June 23rd, Alain Werner, co-lawyer for civil party group 1, suggested to the accused another way to look at his role at the head of S-21 – and hence his personality – which departs from what Duch has explained until now during his trial, in other words, that the former director of the security centre where over 12,000 people lost their lives was no other than a zealous cadre. Shortly afterwards, the defence counsel presented a rueful Duch by showing an excerpt from the footage shot during the reconstruction at Choeung Ek and S-21. Also, the tribunal’s international co-Prosecutor, Robert Petit, announced his resignation (see textbox).
Did Duch encourage torture?
Alain Werner introduced his examination by acknowledging that the accused had been in the last few days bombarded with questions and had not eluded any of them. He respectfully invited him to continue giving short answers and launched into a sagacious and uncompromising interrogation that however failed to unsettle the accused.
Why did Duch give importance to interrogator Toch – who, as he repeatedly stressed, enjoyed torturing prisoners in S-21 and using the “hot method” – while he knew his sadistic inclinations? Duch acknowledged: should an interrogator fail to extract a confession from a detainee, the latter would be entrusted with Toch and the result was guaranteed. The Swiss lawyer went further: “You declared before the judges [last Tuesday] that the young interrogators could be extreme and that some of them did not control themselves and were cruel. Sir, do you accept that by giving importance to a sadist such as Toch […], you were encouraging the young interrogators in S-21 to be cruel as well and inflict unnecessary suffering?” “You said I pushed him further. No, I never did that,” Duch replied. “I continued to trust him [Toch], to give him advice that allowed him to feel more or less comfortable in relation to torture and to continue performing it…”
Although Duch recognised the existence under Democratic Kampuchea of a real general policy of the Communist Party of Kampuchea (CPK) to starve the population, Alain Werner gave an example proving that “he could have acted otherwise” and fed better the prisoners under his authority and dying of hunger. In 1978, while rice was lacking due to numerous floods, the accused chose to offer a rice production surplus to Angkar through Nuon Chea. “Why?”, the lawyer asked. “These crimes against humanity are part of a context. I had enough rice in my hand but I did not dare to give that rice to the prisoners detained in Phnom Penh. […] I never dared to make any changes to food rations for the prisoners,” such as defined by the party policy, the accused explained.
Alain Werner: “We believe that is not the truth”
Alain Werner continued, “You explained you didn’t visit the main prison because you had no choice other than to ‘avoid being in contact with the prisoners […] because when [you] saw them, [you were] very upset, so why try and see them,’ ‘because [you] did not allow [yourself] to see or hear anything.’” “In summary, what you are telling us is that the reason why you did not go the main prison […] is that it would have upset you. Sir, we believe that is not the truth,” the lawyer said. “What we believe is that when you were the director of S-21, everything you did, you did it to please your superiors, Son Sen, then Nuon Chea. You went to the artists’ workshop because you wanted the work on the sculptures to progress to please Pol Pot. You followed the interrogation of Vietnamese [prisoners] because you wanted the radio broadcast to be good quality to please your superiors. Also, you spent all your time, including the nights, on the confessions to produce lists of enemies to please your superiors, Son Sen and Nuon Chea. What we believe is that the reason why you probably did not go often to the main prison is that it was not useful to you in any way. The suffering of the detainees was no use to you. None of it served your personal promotion and as a result, you were completely indifferent to this suffering. And we believe that this suffering did not matter to you, it did not interest you and it did not upset you. “Do you accept that today?”
Duch was in no way taken aback and did elude the question. “What you claimed about my emotions is fundamentally accurate. I endeavoured to please my superiors. I pushed my subordinates to work better in order to please my superiors. I tried to note the confessions with the intent to please my superiors. So, everything I did, I did it to please my superiors. […] However, I would like to say I did not go and see my friends who were detained in the prison […] because I could not talk with them. […] In conclusion, when Alain Werner says I was a coward, it is true, but it went beyond cowardice as I had betrayed my friends, my teachers, in order to be able to survive. Here, before this Chamber, I declare that I am responsible for the crimes I have committed and I would like the Cambodian people to see that I recognise the crimes I committed during that period.”
“I survived because I was always honest and loyal with my superiors”
Recalling the words of expert Craig Etcheson, who came to the stand to testify and stated that Duch’s promotion to the direction of S-21 resulted in particular from the practice of establishing lists of enemies that he developed and refined, the lawyer asked: “Is it true that you were promoted as director of S-21 because you had succeeded so well at pleasing your superiors and they appreciated the lists of enemies?” Duch said he wanted to leave Alain Werner’s hypothesis aside and preferred to discuss the way he tried to satisfy his superiors. “It’s true. I worked day and night, with no fear of exhaustion, in order to satisfy my superiors. My boss appealed to me day and night and I executed the orders I was given.” And if it was necessary to be “creative,” “it was in the context of the party line. Otherwise, one could be accused with treason. […] My capacity to innovate was limited by the party line,” he insisted.
Duch was accused in at least two confessions, and not the least. However, he survived. “Why did nothing happen to you?”, the lawyer asked him, sketching an answer: “Was it because you were protected by Son Sen and Nuon Chea, who appreciated your zeal?” Duch seemed to have the answer to everything. The first confession, that of a former professor, incriminated him for facts dating to 1956-57, he explained, and “the superior echelon therefore deemed this information to be insignificant.” As for the second, that of Vorn Vet, his former supervisor, his name featured on the last page and he did not attempt to modify the confessions to make his name disappear. The accused thus concluded, as it were obvious: “I survived because I was always honest and loyal with my superiors.”
Who controlled who?
Alain Werner still had some ammunition. He reminded the accused he had repeatedly said he collaborated “closely with Son Sen.” Yet, the latter, as Craig Etcheson explained, held various important functions concurrently and must have been “an extremely busy man.” “I also find it hard to believe that someone with national responsibilities as important as those of Son Sen would devote time to the interrogation or execution of [prisoners of little importance]. Wasn’t it true […] that for people who were not considered important in S-21, Son Sen, because he was a very busy man, was not involved at all in the interrogations, the confessions or the executions. In reality, you were the one who took the decisions, nearly without any supervision, for the interrogations, confessions and supervision of those who were not important in S-21, weren’t you? Do you accept that?” Duch maintained his stance: “The work I performed in S-21, I did it on the orders of my superiors. There was an organisational line. Did I receive orders from my superiors? It is true that my superior had a lot of work himself, since he was a member of the Central Committee […]. But who controlled who? My superior would not have allowed me to act freely. He followed closely the work I did, by telephone, on a daily basis, and gave me instructions on all aspects. […] My superior checked every day what I did in the execution of orders received. That does not mean he was not aware of what I did, even if he had a lot of other things to do. He was very intelligent and was twelve years older than me. I do not want here to shift the blame on my superior [… ]. I had the obligation to apply the orders I received from my superior.”
Could Duch have released prisoners?
The lawyer then evoked six lists of prisoners allegedly released. A decision of his predecessor, Nath, former director of S-21, who Duch claimed in court attempted to conceal his fault, that of ordering on his own initiative the arrests of these individuals. The people whose names featured on these lists were not released in the end, according to Duch. “The reason why, yet today, and despite the existence of these lists, you refuse to acknowledge that people were indeed released from S-21 is that it shows it was not impossible to release someone from S-21 and this sets a question that embarrasses you: why you did not yourself release people who were detained in S-21 and were innocent of any crime, which you knew. Do you accept this hypothesis?” “You cannot hide an elephant with a leaf,” Duch defended himself. He denied that prisoners could have been released and recalled that “outside of the Angkar, nobody had the right to release anyone.”
Duch alleges he did not kill anyone with his own hands in M-13 or S-21
The defence then took the floor. François Roux, Duch’s international co-lawyer, requested that the trial management meeting scheduled for Thursday [June 25th] afternoon be moved to the day’s afternoon [on June 23rd], as he was forced to go back to France for family reasons. His request was accepted by all and the hearing was thus adjourned at lunchtime.
Kar Savuth, the Cambodian co-lawyer for the accused, focused his questions on Nath, the former director of S-21, whose deputy Duch was before he was entrusted the direction of the security centre. Duch described him as a manipulative man, who had people arrested on his own initiative, “in an arbitrary manner,” and whose actions were caught by the vigilance of the superiors. Likely a way to demonstrate once more that one could not stray from the party line and not follow the orders without being at risk of being discarded, as it happened to Nath. His lawyer prompted him to say his hands were not bloodstained – “whether in M-13 or S-21, I never killed anyone with my own hands,” Duch confirmed – and that the great leader of the murderous regime was none other than Pol Pot. Although the lawyer sought persistently to clear his client, the latter did however not deny the role he played in the death machine.
François Roux shows a repentant accused
François Roux’s intervention was brief and focused on the reconstruction in February 2008 carried out in S-21 and Choeung Ek, following a proposal of the defence to the co-Investigating Judges. Duch reported that returning to those places shocked him as much as it upset him, a moment he would never forget, he said. “I pray to God to be forgiven for these souls,” he added. François Roux then requested an extract of the footage shot during the reconstruction to be broadcast. It showed the accused speaking to survivors present during the reconstruction. Duch was seen solemnly reading a text he held in his hands. He explained he was upset to find himself back in these “painful” places, said he thought about “the unfortunate victims and their families” who “suffered countless inhuman miseries, tortures and insults, before dying.” He then froze, unable to continue his statement. He hiccupped before crumbling into tears, turning his back to the camera. His two lawyers put their hands on him. He turned around, distraught, his lips sealed in a wince of affliction.
The sequence, shown on the screen, Duch seemed to watch it from a distance in the courtroom. “Since the S-21 tragedy, have you made offerings for the souls of the victims?”, his lawyer asked him. “I make an offering every year. First, I ask forgiveness from my parents, then I ask forgiveness from my teachers, then finally, I ask forgiveness from all the victims of the crimes. I do it all the time. That is what I used to do until I was imprisoned. From then on, I was unable to make offerings,” the accused declared. Since he converted to Christianity, it is God he prayed for the souls of the victims. He then requested to be authorised to return to the case of Professor Phung Ton, who died in S-21 and whose widow and daughter participate to the trial as civil parties. The president denied him the opportunity. It was indeed not the right time. However, Nil Nonn promised him he would have the opportunity, when the debates close, to “talk to the victims, their families, the Cambodian people and the whole world,” before the judges decide their ruling.
In a statement made public on Tuesday June 23rd, the international co-Prosecutor announced that it was with the deepest regret that “for personal and family reasons,” he had to demit his position at the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) effective September 1st. Claiming he was “certain” his office would continue to work “with the same vigor during and after this transition period,” Robert Petit added that a formal process of appointing a successor was ongoing and would “no doubt be completed soon.” His resignation occurred while the argument opposing him to his Cambodian colleague regarding the indictment or not of new individuals in addition to the five already indicted by the ECCC is still unresolved. Also, the first trial opened before the hybrid court, that of Duch, is still ongoing.
From: http://cambodia.ka-set.info
0 comments:
Post a Comment