ECCC, Case 001, Issue 10

During the first two days of this week, the parties questioned the Accused on the “Functioning of S-21” and “Killings at S-21, the surrounding areas and Choeung Ek”. Questioning then turned to the “Establishment and Functioning of Prey Sar (S-24)”. Notable facts revealed by Duch largely concerned the functioning of the security office at Prey Sar. According to Duch, Prey Sar was in essence a “prison without walls”, not a place for interrogation and torture, but a forced labor camp for those whose loyalty the Party doubted. Duch claimed to have delegated all authority over Prey Sar to two subordinates and to have not personally make decisions. He nevertheless agreed that he had the power to stop the criminal practices, but did not because he was afraid for his life.

A significant procedural development this week was the further delimitation of the role of civil parties. While International Defense Lawyer François Roux argued that civil party lawyers should not act as a second prosecutor but only defend the interests of the civil parties, the Chamber strongly suggested otherwise by affirming a broad interpretation of Article 23(1) of the Internal Rules, which states that civil parties are to “support the prosecution”. It is noteworthy that  proceedings were adjourned early twice this week. This raises concerns that further early adjournments will defeat the purpose of imposing time limits and reducing the number of witnesses testifying.