ECCC, Case 001, Issue 14

This week’s hearings spanned the course of three days, during which the Chamber heard the testimony of three alleged former S-21 staff. Him Huy, who also testified last week, returned to the witness stand to be examined by the Parties. Subsequently the Chamber heard testimony from Prak Khorn. It further attempted to start the examination of Kok Sros during the day’s last session, but a procedural debate interrupted his testimony.

Him Huy and Prak Khorn painted a different picture of the Security Office than that described by Mam Nai. Unlike the latter, who denied the severity of prison conditions at S-21, both witnesses described how detainees were living in deplorable conditions, suffering from malnutrition, and subjected to torture before being executed. Most notably, both witnesses raised the incidence of rape committed by a guard against a female detainee. Prak Khorn also discussed the practice of draining prisoners of their blood: this was the first time the Chamber had heard detailed testimony about this alleged act. While both witnesses refused to answer questions that might incriminate them in the courtroom, it became clear that they had not exercised the same discretion during the pre-trial stage. Although legal support for the witnesses was readily available to protect the right against selfincrimination, a further issue regarding witness intimidation arose this week. The issue was raised by International Deputy Co-Prosecutor, William Smith, who proposed a change in the existing procedure of questioning the Accused during the testimony of a witness, pointing out that the existing structure of questioning allowed the Accused to criticize a witness’ account before s/he had completed his/her testimony. 

One of the most notable legal and procedural issues arising this week centered around the revelation that witnesses may be watching the KRT’s proceedings on television. Prak Khorn admitted on Wednesday that he had been watching Civil Party Nam Mun giving testimony in a national television broadcast. This raises the question as to what measures have been taken to ensure witnesses are not tailoring their evidence to corroborate the testimony of others, which, if true, would compromise their testimony and potentially the proceedings.