Who are Meas Muth and Sou Met?

By Khmer Democrat, Phnom Penh
ECCC Cases 003 and 004 Series

Is civil party applicant Ms. Theary C. Seng correct in saying that Meas Muth and Sou Met are in Case 003 and Im Chaem and two other district chiefs are in Case 004? See ECCC Timeline by Theary C. Seng. Are Cambodian scholar Steve Heder and international lawyer Brian Tittemore correct in naming Meas Muth and Sou Met as senior leaders to be prosecuted? See http://www.wcl.american.edu/warcrimes/khmerrouge.pdf?rd=1. This series will provide in full the section on Meas Muth and Sou Met from the report Seven Candidates for Prosecution: Accountability for the Crimes of the Khmer Rouge.

Sou Met and Meah Mut

a. Evidentiary Analysis

i. Positions and Roles in the CPK

Who are Meas Muth and Sou Met? Part 1

ii. Minutes of General Staff Meetings

Who are Meas Muth and Sou Met? Part 2

iii. Reports and other Documents from Sou Met and Meah Mut

Who are Meas Muth and Sou Met? Part 3

b. Legal Analysis and Conclusions

i. Individual Responsibility

Who are Meas Muth and Sou Met? Part 4

ii. Superior Responsibility

(a) Superior-Subordinate Relationship

Who are Meas Muth and Sou Met? Part 5

(b) Mens Rea

Numerous accounts of meetings attended by Sou Met and Meah Mut at which arrests and executions were discussed provide the most significant body of evidence that the two Secretaries had knowledge of crimes committed by CPK cadre. Notes from meetings on August 30, 1976, September 16, 1976, September 19, 1976, September 30, 1976, October 9, 1976, and March 1, 1977 reveal the presence of one or both officials at General Staff meeting convened by Son Sen.

At these meetings, participants discussed arrests, purges, and murders. Moreover, minutes from several meetings record Sou Met and Meah Mut as reporting on the implementation by their Divisions of the Party’s execution polices and expressing their support for those policies.

Similarly, both Sou Met and Meah Mut appear to have authored reports transmitted to the General Staff that reported on arrests in their Divisions. For example, a report bearing Sou Met’s signature dated September 1, 1976 describes the arrest and interrogation by a battalion under his command of two individuals on August 19, 1976.

Moreover, Sou Met appears to have composed notes directly to Duch, which subsequently accompanied cadre who were transferred from his Division to S-21. This evidence, together with the fact that both officials held positions of moderate authority in the CPK hierarchy and that numerous cadre from both of their Divisions were arrested, further suggests that Sou Met and Meah Mut knew or had reason to know of arrests and executions conducted or facilitated by their subordinates and failed to take reasonable and necessary steps to prevent these atrocities or punish the perpetrators.

[ to be continued ]