KRT TRIAL MONITOR Case 002/02 ■ Issue No. 22 ■ Hearings on Evidence Week 19 ■ 9-12 June 2015
Case of Nuon Chea and Khieu Samphan
Asian International Justice Initiative (AIJI), a project of East-West Center and the WSD Handa Center for Human Rights and International Justice at Stanford University (previously known as the UC Berkeley War Crimes Studies Center)
I thought that I would die from overwork or exhaustion, and that I would go and meet my parents...I was thinking of them, and sometimes I wept while I was about to sleep, and I was hopeless, because of the working conditions on site.
- Witness Keo Leou
I. OVERVIEW
This week, the Trial Chamber commenced the next segment of the proceedings in Case 002/02 with testimony from three witnesses on the Kampong Chhnang Airport Construction site (KCA). This trial segment covers the second of three worksites to be discussed in the trial, and it relates to charges of crimes against humanity of enslavement, extermination, murder, and persecution on political grounds, as well as other inhumane acts, through “attacks against human dignity,” enforced disappearances, and forced marriage.1 The KCA was located in DK’s Central Zone under the alleged oversight of the DK Air Force, also known as Division 502. All three witnesses who testified this week were originally members of the Khmer Rouge military who were later transferred to work at the KCA in different capacities. Mr. Chan Mân, Mr. Keo Kin, and Mr. Keo Leou all spoke about their background, their experiences at the worksite, and their knowledge of DK military structures. Parties raised only a few minor objections during this week’s proceedings, but monitors noted some issues with the Chamber’s time management, and a Judge reprimanded Defense Counsel for problematic questioning of a Witness.
II. SUMMARY OF WITNESS TESTIMONY
This week, the Trial Chamber heard the testimony of three witnesses. All three were soldiers in the Revolutionary Army of Kampuchea (RAK), and, at different points after the 1975 Khmer Rouge takeover of the country, were sent to work at the KCA.
A. Summary of Testimony by Witness Chan Mân
The first witness to testify before the Trial Chamber this week was 61-year old Chan Mân, a civil servant born in Kampong Chhnang Province. He provided the Chamber with information on his 1 KRT Trial Monitor Case 002/02 ■ Issue 22 ■ Hearings on Evidence Week 19 ■ 9-12 June 2015 roles within the military and his experiences at the KCA. He testified on the working and living conditions, as well as arrests, at the site.2
1. Witness’ Positions with the Khmer Rouge
Chan Mân joined the Revolution in 1970, at the age of fourteen.3 The Witness testified that, from 1972 to 1975, he was assigned to be a military messenger by Lvey, a RAK group chief. According to the Witness, in early 1976, Lvey assigned him to accompany a Chinese delegation to measure the land at the future Kampong Chhnang Airport, as the Witness "was familiar with the geography." He eventually became the delegation's driver. At the airfield, Chan Mân received orders from Met, the chief of the DK Air Force (also known as Division 502), who informed him about his duties and asked about the results.4 The Witness testified that Met "knew him well compared to others," as they had met frequently when the Witness was a soldier. Met assigned the Witness to carry out many tasks at the Airfield. Chan Mân told the Prosecution that he was also instructed to transport equipment from the seaport at Kampong Som to the Airport construction site.
2. Work at the Kampong Chhnang Airport Construction Site
Chan Mân first arrived at the KCA before construction began, when there were not many workers. The Witness estimated the worksite grew to host approximately 1000 workers. The Witness confirmed the presence of Chinese engineers at the site and testified that the worksite received Chinese aid in the form of material and equipment such as steel, trucks, and earth- carrying baskets. Apart from the Chinese delegation, only soldiers from various units, including Division 502, worked at the airfield. Chan Mân did not recall any civilians the site, and he added that the project was very secretive. In relation to the authority at the KCA, the Witness recalled that the office chief was named Yeng, and although he had heard about senior DK leaders coming to visit the site, he did not directly witness any visits.
Chan Mân stated that there was no individual work quota at KCA, as quotas existed only for full units. He testified that the workday lasted from 7:00AM to 5:30PM, with a two-hour lunch break from 11:30AM to 1:30PM. According to the Witness, the food during this lunch break was better for the Chinese technicians than Khmer soldier-workers at the KCA.5 The Witness also noted that, while the Chinese technicians were given days off, the Khmer workers received no holidays except on the national holiday of 17 April. a) Accidents and Suicides at the Kampong Chhnang Airport Construction Site
The Witness claimed that many people were killed by falling rock fragments at the rock- breaking unit.6 He also claimed that, “out of starvation and desperation,” women committed suicide at the KCA by throwing themselves under the wheels of the heavy equipment. Under examination by Khieu Samphan's Defense Counsel, Anta Guissé, Chan Mân confirmed that he had never witnessed such an incident himself, but that he once saw a woman's body being picked up by an ambulance, and a colleague told him that she was a suicide victim. He also testified that Ta Khut, a member of the “protection unit,” informed him that suicides and accidents happened "many times."7 The Witness noted that no compensation was provided when a worker died.
The Witness also mentioned that, during this period, "work and tools were more important than human life." The Witness gave the example that, when a car rolled off the road, the driver would be accused of delaying the work, even if the passengers were injured. For instance, when the Witness broke a truck headlight lamp, he was told that the lamp could keep a village running for a month and that "[A] lamp could be sold and used to feed the whole people in Kampong Cham. And it was said that one life could not be compared with that lamp."
2 KRT Trial Monitor Case 002/02 ■ Issue 22 ■ Hearings on Evidence Week 19 ■ 9-12 June 2015 b) Refashioning and Arrests at the Kampong Chhnang Airport Construction Site
The Witness testified that other workers revealed to him that they had ended up at the site for refashioning and that "half of the people sent from their Zone had disappeared." The Witness told the Prosecution that he "personally saw people being trucked away" at night. He also testified that he heard screams and smelled decomposed bodies near his quarters.8 He emphasized that the increasing number of arrests at the site led to a state of fear, and that simply mentioning the wrong word could make someone an enemy and lead to their arrest.9 Chan Mân claimed that he was eventually arrested for false reasons related to his delivery of rice to East Zone soldier-workers and was taken to S-21, from which he managed to escape.10
3. Witness Demeanor and Credibility
Throughout his testimony, the Witness provided detailed answers and copious amounts of information. However, he frequently stated that events had taken place “a long time ago" and explained that injuries he sustained during a landmine explosion had impaired his memory and hearing.11 Chan Mân also contradicted himself several times, especially regarding the story of his arrest and escape from S-21.
B. Summary of Testimony by Witness Keo Kin
From 10 to 11 June, 49-year-old Keo Kin, from Kampong Chhnang Province, testified about his work during the Revolution and at the KCA from after the fall of Phnom Penh until the 1979 Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia.12
1. Life as a Revolutionary Soldier from 1973 to 1975
In 1973, the Witness responded to King Sihanouk’s call to join the Revolution against the Lon Nol regime, and he eventually joined Ta Lvey in Regiment 502 of Division 1 in Kampong Speu. He received approximately three days of training on how to hold and fire his rifle, and he was then sent to fight in the battlefield. Keo Kin fought at Tuol Leap battlefield and said that he saw his comrades injured and killed in the fighting, but he himself was not injured in combat. By the end of 1974, he was serving as a messenger for Lvey.
2. Work at the Kampong Chhnang Airport Construction Site
In mid- to late-1975, the Witness arrived at the KCA to guard a garage. He stated that he was sent to the KCA because he was “accused of having tendencies”. He considered that this was likely because his father was a former deputy village chief. As a result of these “tendencies”, the Witness was removed from his position as a messenger for Ta Lvey and ordered to assist in clearing trees at the KCA. Later, he saw machinery compress the ground in the same cleared areas. He stated that his main tasks included building garages at the KCA, growing vegetables, and helping villagers grow and collect rice for the soldiers, which he estimated to number around 1000, if the on-site Chinese technicians were included. The Witness testified that he generally worked from 5:00AM until 10:30PM and was not allowed to go anywhere freely. Keo Kin remembered many cases of malaria as there were no mosquito nets and the site’s living conditions were very unsanitary.13 He did not recall anyone dying of exhaustion, but he did see workers that had been killed by falling rock fragments. In terms of administrative structures, the Witness testified that Song was the group leader of land management and that Met became the chief of the site when Regiment 502 became Division 502.
Keo Kin recalled that disciplinary measures became stricter over the course of the DK regime. He recalled that, compared to his first sessions of refashioning, which began in 1974, disciplinary measures worsened after 1975 and grew even worse after his arrival to the KCA. While he never witnessed the smashing of people or any “soldiers buried in pits,” he stated that
3 KRT Trial Monitor Case 002/02 ■ Issue 22 ■ Hearings on Evidence Week 19 ■ 9-12 June 2015 he did witness arrests for a variety of reasons. He testified that he and his fellow soldiers knew that “all instructions had to be implemented without question,” because, “if [they] didn’t comply or respect the discipline of the chiefs, [they] would be killed and smashed.” The Witness also stated that, if workers “simply talked to one another, [they] would be criticized for that.” When questioned about soldiers that were arrested for alleged ties to the CIA or KGB, the Witness said, “The people accused of being CIA and KGB often did not even know what CIA and KGB was…but nothing could be done against it. Once the person was accused, the person would not be spared.”
3. Witness Demeanor and Credibility
Keo Kin remained calm throughout his examination, and his responses appeared consistent. He rarely responded that he did not remember, but rather that he was of such a low rank in DK that he did not know the information that requested of him. Eventually, the Defense Teams shifted their questions from attempting to undermine the credibility of the Witness (see IV.C) and instead focused their efforts on using Keo Kin’s testimony to discredit the testimony of the prior witness, Chan Mân.14
C. Summary of Testimony of Witness Keo Leou
On the afternoon of 12 June. Keo Leou commenced his testimony, under examination by the international prosecutor.15 He discussed his positions in RAK Division 310 and his eventual refashioning at the KCA after the arrest of his superiors. He will continue his testimony at the hearing on 15 June.
1. Witness’ Background Within the RAK
Keo Leou, born in 1951 in Kampong Thom Province, joined the Revolution in 1970 as a teenaged soldier in RAK Division 310’s Battalion 317. In December 1974, he was appointed deputy chairman of the Battalion, but, while fighting to take Phnom Penh on 1 January 1975, the Witness injured his leg. He was transferred to Unit K-4 for recovery near Calmette Hospital in Phnom Penh, presumably after the capital’s fall. The Witness testified that K-4 was a unit for permanently handicapped soldiers. In 1976, he was appointed as the Company chairman of Unit K-4, but soon thereafter the purges of North Zone cadres and soldiers began.
2. Purge of Cadres and Soldiers from the North Zone
Keo Leou confirmed that, starting in late 1976, superior officers in Unit K-4, Battalion 317, and Division 310 were purged, due to alleged “links with CIA.” His unit of approximately 600 soldiers was soon thereafter relocated to Khmounh Kâb Srauv, near Phnom Penh, for five months of “tempering” along with other units from the Division. The Witness recalled that, in Khmounh, the number of arrests increased drastically, as, each night, four to ten persons were picked out from meetings of all the soldiers. He testified that the selected individuals were tied up, put into bags, loaded into vehicles, and then taken away. Those not arrested, including handicapped soldiers such as the Witness, were forced to work in rice fields every day from 4:00AM to 11:00PM. The soldiers were disarmed and instructed to wear black clothing; they had no freedom of movement and received insufficient food rations, as well.
Keo Leou recalled witnessing the arrests of K-4 chief Ta Teu, his deputy, Ta Sen, and logistics chief Ta Rum, never to see them return. He also testified that he saw the arrests of Company chairman Ta Sim and Ta Veng, and that, in July 1977, the Southwest Zone officials overseeing the purges also announced that Division 310 leaders Ta Oeun, Ta Kim, and Ta Yiet were arrested. The Witness testified that Southwest Zone officials came to replace the purged North Zone leaders, and they threatened the soldiers working at Khmounh that “anyone who was lazy would be sent to Tuol Sleng and Prey Sar prisons.” After the arrest of Ta Teu, Keo Leou
4 KRT Trial Monitor Case 002/02 ■ Issue 22 ■ Hearings on Evidence Week 19 ■ 9-12 June 2015 became deputy commander of a Battalion in Unit K-4, but the remaining members of his unit were soon transferred to Kampong Chhnang Airport construction site for further work.
3. Experiences at the Kampong Chhnang Airport Construction Site
Witness Keo Leou told the Prosecutor that he was transferred to work at the airfield in Kampong Chhnang on 15 January 1978. He confirmed this specific date, explaining, “This is one of the dates that I cannot forget in my life.” He testified that people at the worksite lacked freedom to move around, or to visit family members or even a neighboring work unit. Workers were under the surveillance of militia guards, and, if they moved freely, they were accused as enemies. Keo Leou testified that, at the Airport, there was no proper sleeping quarters and inadequate sanitation, so he recalled seeing many flies at the site, and in his food as well. Food rations were limited for workers, as they were given only sour soup with little meat and fish, twice a day. The Witness testified that the meager rations and lack of days for rest from work prompted the death of workers from starvation and fatigue. However, workers dared not complain about food, for fear of accusations of betraying Angkar. Keo Leou explained, workers “had to keep [their] mouth[s] shut and keep working.” He further stated that the overwork and exhaustion made him feel that he “was like a dead person,” and that he “never thought that [he] would survive.” However, the Witness confirmed that, after two months of further “tempering” at the worksite, he was selected for a course in Phnom Penh on land surveying. After returning to the Airport with this training, his status was improved and working conditions eased. He clarified, however, that, for other workers from his unit, conditions did not change. Keo Leou confirmed that there were only 14 people from his original unit who survived the DK period. It is unclear whether the majority of the soldiers were arrested or died, but the Witness repeatedly stated that arrests were far more frequent at Kmounh Kâp Srauv than at the KCA.
4. Witness Demeanor and Credibility
During the Prosecution’s examination of Witness Keo Leou, he appeared confident to provide details of what he saw and experienced. For example, he was able to recall exact dates of particular events and the names of senior cadres in his unit who were arrested. The Witness also acknowledged openly when he could not recall facts or did not know other details.
III. LEGAL AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES
Few legal and procedural issues were raised this week. Both of the international Defense lawyers objected to a number of questions during the Prosecution’s examination of Witness Keo Kin, but the Trial Chamber overruled all the objections and allocated additional examination time to the Prosecution to compensate for the loss of time (see IV.B). During the Prosecution’s examination of Witness Keo Kin, Defense Counsel for Nuon Chea, Victor Koppe, objected three times in short order. One of his objections regarded leading questions posed to the Witness,16 and the others were based on his assertion that the question fell outside the scope of the case.17 The Chamber overruled Counsel Koppe’s leading question objection.18 When Counsel Koppe objected shortly thereafter on grounds of temporal scope,19 the Chamber again overruled him. Defense Counsel Victor Koppe was also reminded to properly reference any documents he wished to question Witnesses about, in accordance with the established court procedure.20 Counsel stressed that the question was not about any particular document and declined to ask the question.
IV. TRIAL MANAGEMENT
This week, the Trial Chamber commenced a new segment in Case 002/02 covering the KCA with the examination of three witnesses who worked there. The third Witness, Mr. Keo Leou, will continue his testimony next Monday, 15 June. Notably, during Defense Counsel Victor
5 KRT Trial Monitor Case 002/02 ■ Issue 22 ■ Hearings on Evidence Week 19 ■ 9-12 June 2015 Koppe’s examination of Witness Keo Kin, Judge Fenz criticized Mr. Koppe’s tone and line of questioning.
A. Attendance
Nuon Chea waived his right to be present in the courtroom and observed proceedings from the holding cell, while Khieu Samphan was present in the courtroom during all sessions throughout the week.
Judge Attendance: All Judges were present in the courtroom throughout the week, with the exception of national Judge You Ottara, who was absent on 12 June due to personal commitments. National Reserve Judge Thou Mony was appointed to sit in his place.
Civil Parties Attendance: Approximately ten Civil Parties observed the proceedings each day this week from inside the courtroom.
Parties: All the Parties were properly represented in the courtroom throughout the week.
Attendance by the public:
DATE MORNING AFTERNOON
Tuesday § Approximately 300 villagers and § 65 villagers and 15 Cham from 20 Cham from Kampong Tralach Kampong Tralach District, 9/06/2015 District, Kampong Chhnang Kampong Chhnang Province Province § Two foreign observers § 13 foreign observers Wednesday § 391 villagers from Rolea B’ier § 224 villagers from Rolea B’ier District, Kampong Chhnang District, Kompong Chhnang 10/06/2015 Province Province § 26 foreign observers
Thursday § 260 Villagers from Rolea B’ier § 125 villagers from Rolea B’ier District, Kampong Chhnang District, Kampong Chhnang 11/06/2015 Province § One foreign observer
Friday § 250 villagers from Rolea B’ier District, Kampong Chhnang 12/06/2015 No proceedings Province
B. Time Management
A late adjustment to the Court schedule led to some confusion this week, as proceedings commenced one day later than usual, with only afternoon sessions held on Friday.21 Regrettably, the Parties were not notified of the change to the Friday schedule until the day before.22 On Thursday, the Chamber refused to grant additional time to the Prosecution for the examination of Witness Keo Kin. However, following “several objections made by other Parties” during the Prosecution’s questioning, the Trial Chamber decided to grant international prosecutor Vincent de Wilde D’Estmael an additional 15 minutes of time. Although the Chamber also allocated the Defense Teams additional time after Judge Lavergne took up part of their allotments in examining witnesses this week, Trial Monitors noted that this contradicted the Chamber’s general practice to include objections in the time allotted to the parties.
6 KRT Trial Monitor Case 002/02 ■ Issue 22 ■ Hearings on Evidence Week 19 ■ 9-12 June 2015 C. Courtroom Etiquette
The Parties and Judges were largely respectful to each other this week, with the exception of Judge Fenz’s reprimand of Defense Counsel Victor Koppe for questions he put to Witness Keo Kin. During his examination of the Witness, Mr. Koppe attempted to compare the working conditions of soldiers at the worksite and soldiers in combat. The Witness noted that he worked from 5:00AM to 7:00PM and “only had an hour break time.” Mr. Koppe responded, “But you were a revolutionary soldier, Mr. Witness, building and defending the country. Surely not having an hour break time is not that bad.” Judge Fenz then interjected, “Wait a minute,” and the President stopped the line of questioning immediately.
After deliberating with the other judges, Judge Fenz addressed Counsel Koppe:
As Counsel well knows, the question is based on the misinterpretation of fact. The Witness did not say the only reason why it was difficult was that he didn’t have an hour break. So we advise the Witness not to answer, and the question in its tendency was inappropriate.
Judge Fenz finished her statement by smacking the microphone away from her and looking in the opposite direction of Counsel Koppe with irritation. When Counsel Koppe responded with the question, “Why is that Judge Fenz,” she was visibly agitated and answered, “You know why.” When Counsel Koppe replied, “No, I don’t. Please explain.” Judge Fenz leaned forward in her seat and responded in a strained tone:
I am happy to re-read. Frankly, for me, you sounded as if you were a person from that time. Reminding the Witness, threatening the Witness, reminding the Witness, of his obligations. There are other ways to put a question.
Counsel Koppe moved on, but not before adding, “I should not say what I want to say now.”
D. Translation and Technical Issues
On 10 June, several minor mistranslations from Khmer to English occurred throughout the testimony of Witness Chan Mân.23 During Mr. Smith’s questioning of Witness Keo Leou, there were repeated errors in translation of “Battalion” as “Regiment,” and the Witness eventually had to correct the Prosecutor that he was in “Battalion K-4, not Regiment K-4.” On 11 June, trial monitors also noted a few technical interruptions, which were the Court Officer promptly addressed.
E. Time Table
MORNING AFTERNOON TOTAL DATE START LUNCH RECESS BREAK BREAK HOURS
Tuesday 4 hours and 9:01 10:07 –10:29 11:37 – 13:29 14:45 – 15:03 16:09 9/06/2015 36 minutes
Wednesday 4 hours and 8:58 10:10 – 10:29 11:31 – 13:30 15:00 – 15:15 16:10 10/06/2015 39 minutes
Thursday 4 hours and 9:03 10:17 – 10:38 11:25 – 13:28 14:43 – 14:59 16:01 11/06/2015 18 minutes
7 KRT Trial Monitor Case 002/02 ■ Issue 22 ■ Hearings on Evidence Week 19 ■ 9-12 June 2015 Friday 2 hours and 13:28 – – 14:39 – 14:58 15:59 12/056/2015 12 minutes Average number of hours in session 3 hours and 56 minute Total number of hours this week 15 hours and 45 minutes Total number of hours, day, weeks at trial 267 hours and 40 minutes
72 TRIAL DAYS OVER 22 WEEKS
*This report was authored by Lea Huber, Melanie Hyde, Hout Pheng Ly, Daniel Mattes, Lina Tay, Vichheka Thorng, Katherine Vessels, and Oudom Vong as part of AIJI’s KRT Trial Monitoring and Community Outreach Program. AIJI is a collaborative project between the East-West Center, in Honolulu, and the WSD Handa Center for Human Rights and International Justice at Stanford University (previously known as the UC Berkeley War Crimes Studies Center). Since 2003, the two Centers have been collaborating on projects relating to the establishment of justice initiatives and capacity-building programs in the human rights sector in Southeast Asia.
Unless specified otherwise,
§ the documents cited in this report pertain to the Case of Nuon Chea and Khieu Samphan before the ECCC; § the quotes are based on the personal notes of the trial monitors during the proceedings; § the figures in the Public Attendance section of the report are only approximations made By AIJI staff; and § photos are courtesy of the ECCC.
Glossary of Terms
Case001 The Case of Kaing Guek Eav alias “Duch” (Case No. 001/18-07-2007-ECCC) Case002 The Case of Nuon Chea, Ieng Sary, Ieng Thirith, and Khieu Samphan (Case No.002/19-09-2007-ECCC) CPC Code of Criminal Procedure of the Kingdom of Cambodia (2007) CPK Communist Party of Kampuchea CPLCL Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer DK Democratic Kampuchea ECCC Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (also referred to as the Khmer Rouge Tribunal or “KRT”) ECCC Law Law on theEstablishmentoftheECCC, asamended(2004) ERN Evidence Reference Number (the page number of each piece of documentary evidence in the Case File) FUNK National United Front of Kampuchea GRUNK Royal Government of National Union of Kampuchea ICC International Criminal Court ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ICTR International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda ICTY International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia IR Internal Rules of the ECCC Rev.8 (2011) KR Khmer Rouge OCIJ Office of the Co-Investigating Judges OCP Office of the Co-Prosecutors of the ECCC RAK Royal Army of Kampuchea VSS Victims Support Section WESU Witness and Expert Support Unit
8 KRT Trial Monitor Case 002/02 ■ Issue 22 ■ Hearings on Evidence Week 19 ■ 9-12 June 2015
1 Paragraphs 383 to 398 of the Case 002 Closing Order present the allegations regarding the Kampong Chhnang Airport Construction site. 2 Mr. CHAN Mân (2-TCW-975) was questioned in the following order: President NIL Nonn; national deputy Co- Prosecutor SENG Leang; international deputy Co-Prosecutor William SMITH; national Civil Party Lawyer TY Srinna; international Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer Marie GUIRAUD; Judge Jean-Marc LAVERGNE; international co-lawyer for Nuon Chea, Victor KOPPE; international co-lawyer for Khieu Samphan, Anta GUISSÉ; national co-lawyer for Khieu Samphan, KONG Sam Onn. 3 The Witness’ date of birth is listed as 1954, which would have put him at age 16 in 1970. The discrepancy remained unresolved. 4 Mr. SOU Met, alias SOU Samet, was formerly a suspect in the ongoing investigations in Case 003, prior to his death in October 2013. Following the March 2015 charging of MEAS Muth, another suspect in that case, the Court definitively confirmed Sou Met’s prior status as an additional suspect in the case. However, the Co-Investigating Judges also announced that his death “ha[d] the effect of extinguishing any criminal and civil action against him in Case 003 before the ECCC,” and they therefore decided to dismiss the allegations against him. Nonetheless, the OCIJ can still make determinations on Sou Met’s criminal responsibility for the crimes alleged in the OCP’s Introductory Submission when it issues a closing order in Case 003. See Office of the Co-Investigating Judges, “Public Redacted Dismissal of Allegations Against Sou Met” (2 June 2015), D86/3,
9 KRT Trial Monitor Case 002/02 ■ Issue 22 ■ Hearings on Evidence Week 19 ■ 9-12 June 2015
16 Defense Counsel for Khieu Samphan, Anta Guissé, made the same objection on 10 June 2015, reminding Prosecutor Vincent de Wilde D’Estmael to put open questions to witnesses rather than multiple-choice questions. 17 For Mr. Koppe’s objections related to the scope of Case 002/02 last week, see CASE 002/02 KRT TRIAL MONITOR, Issue 21, Hearings on Evidence Week 18 (2-5 June 2015), p. 6. 18 The President noted that there was a rule against leading questions but ruled that the question was not a leading one. A leading question generally prompts a person to answer a certain way. The Prosecutor had quoted other witness statements about suicides at the KCA and asked the Witness if he had seen any suicides, and if so, were they suicides in which women threw themselves under the heavy machinery. It appeared to trial monitors like a leading question, but the Chamber ruled otherwise. This ruling may have been influenced by the discussion between the assistant prosecutor, Vincent de Wilde d’Estmael, and Defense Counsel Victor Koppe, in which Defense Counsel Koppe admitted that he often employed leading questions, but that he did it “on cross-examination,” implying those circumstances made such questions allowable. The Prosecutor reminded Counsel Koppe that, in the ECCC, “There is no distinction between examination and cross-examination in this court. It is not a common law court. There is no difference between Prosecution and Defense witnesses. They are Trial Chamber witnesses.” 19 The Prosecutor had asked Witness Keo Kin to describe what happened to the workers at the Airport worksite near the end of the regime as the Vietnamese neared the airport. Defense Counsel Koppe noted that the “unlawful killings in relation to the East Zone cadres happened after 7 January 1979, and hence were after the temporal jurisdiction of this tribunal.” The ECCC’s temporal jurisdiction commits it to investigate and try crimes allegedly committed between 17 April 1975 and 6 January 1979. The Trial Chamber decided that the Prosecutor’s question fell within those bounds, and in any case, a response would provide context to the DK regime’s treatment of worker- soldiers at the Airport worksite. 20 In his 5 June 2015 examination of Witness SOU Soeun, Counsel Koppe also failed to initially provide documentation for his specific question, and the Chamber reminded him of proper Court practices. See CASE 002/02 KRT TRIAL MONITOR, Issue 21, Hearings on Evidence Week 18 (2-5 June 2015), p. 7. 21 See CASE 002/02 KRT TRIAL MONITOR, Issue 21, Hearings on Evidence Week 18 (2-5 June 2015), p. 7. 22 On Thursday the 11th, the Trial Chamber notified the Parties that there would be no morning sessions on Friday the 12th due to a pre-arranged meeting of a student seminar series in the courtroom’s public gallery at that time. The Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, in cooperation with the ECCC, has organized the student seminar series since July 2014. For more information, see
10 KRT Trial Monitor Case 002/02 ■ Issue 22 ■ Hearings on Evidence Week 19 ■ 9-12 June 2015