Kambol (Phnom Penh, Cambodia). 17/02/2009: Phork Khan and lawyer Martine Jacquin, at the opening of Duch’s trial at the ECCC (Photo: John Vink/ Magnum/ file picture)10-07-2009
By Stéphanie Gée
Ka-set
Wednesday July 8th, the hearing opened with a twist in the case of witness Norng Chanphal, aged 8 when he was taken to S-21 with his mother. Phork Khan, another civil party, then finished testifying, after other contradictions were highlighted in his statement. He was then succeeded by a survivor of re-education centre Prey Sar (S-24), whose insufficiently focused examination lost sight of the facts being judged. The tribunal’s public gallery, which contains 500 seats, has continued to be filled with visitors. Last week, 2,078 people made the trip to the court to attend Duch’s trial.
Witness Chanphal’s mother was killed in S-21
The co-Prosecutors did not wait to announce the “good news:” the Documentation Centre of Cambodia (DC-Cam) had just found the biography of Norng Chanphal’s mother, established in S-21. In the absence of such a document, the accused had said, during the survivor’s testimony on Thursday July 2nd, that the woman had not been imprisoned in the detention centre – nor had her son, as a consequence. After the new document was shown on the screen, the defence bowed while the accused recognised its authenticity and offered his apologies, through the intermediary of the judges, to Norng Chanphal. “The document is new. I was not aware of it at the time he testified, but I accept it.” As no parties raised any objection, the document was considered as added to the file and presented to the court.
An inaccurate written statement
The hearing of civil party Phork Khan, started on the previous day, resumed with questions from the office of the co-Prosecutors. He said he had not returned to the place he believed to be Choeung Ek, where he miraculously escaped certain death. With help from local human rights NGO Adhoc, Phork Khan filed an application to join Duch’s trial as a civil party in 2008. The application file contained his story, as recorded by the organisation. In light of the many contradictions that appeared on the previous day between his written and oral statements, the co-Prosecutors proceeded to some checking: “Were you read the document?” “I read it briefly [when it was communicated to me by the NGO],” the witness answered. “I did not read everything very carefully. I was told it was very urgent to send the document back quickly, so I hastily thumbprinted it.” And it was obvious he did not have a chance to proofread or update the statement before he appeared in court.
Click to Read More...
Witness Chanphal’s mother was killed in S-21
The co-Prosecutors did not wait to announce the “good news:” the Documentation Centre of Cambodia (DC-Cam) had just found the biography of Norng Chanphal’s mother, established in S-21. In the absence of such a document, the accused had said, during the survivor’s testimony on Thursday July 2nd, that the woman had not been imprisoned in the detention centre – nor had her son, as a consequence. After the new document was shown on the screen, the defence bowed while the accused recognised its authenticity and offered his apologies, through the intermediary of the judges, to Norng Chanphal. “The document is new. I was not aware of it at the time he testified, but I accept it.” As no parties raised any objection, the document was considered as added to the file and presented to the court.
An inaccurate written statement
The hearing of civil party Phork Khan, started on the previous day, resumed with questions from the office of the co-Prosecutors. He said he had not returned to the place he believed to be Choeung Ek, where he miraculously escaped certain death. With help from local human rights NGO Adhoc, Phork Khan filed an application to join Duch’s trial as a civil party in 2008. The application file contained his story, as recorded by the organisation. In light of the many contradictions that appeared on the previous day between his written and oral statements, the co-Prosecutors proceeded to some checking: “Were you read the document?” “I read it briefly [when it was communicated to me by the NGO],” the witness answered. “I did not read everything very carefully. I was told it was very urgent to send the document back quickly, so I hastily thumbprinted it.” And it was obvious he did not have a chance to proofread or update the statement before he appeared in court.
Click to Read More...
No comments:
Post a Comment