Closing Order of Case 002 against Senior KR Leaders Nuon Chea, Khieu Samphan, Ieng Sary, Ieng Thirith

In light of the start of trial hearings beginning on 27 June 2011 of Case 002 against the surviving Khmer Rouge senior leaders Nuon Chea, Khieu Samphan, Ieng Sary and Ieng Thirith, KI Media is posting installations of the public document of the Closing Order of Case 002.  The Closing Order of the Co-Investigating Judges forms thebasic document from which all the parties (Co-Prosecutors, Co-Lead Lawyers for all civil parties, Defense Lawyers) will be making their arguments before the Trial Chamber judges (one Cambodian President, 2 Cambodian Judges, 2 UN judges).  Up until now, the hearings involving these four surviving senior Khmer Rouge leaders have been in the Pre-Trial Chamber over issues of pre-trial detention and jurisdictional issues.  Beginning in June 2011, the Trial Chamber will hear the substantive arguments over the criminal charges (e.g. genocide, crimes against humanity, penal code of 1956).  Available in Khmer and French. Contact the ECCC for a free copy. 

 

CLOSING ORDER

of Co-Investigating Judges You Bunleng and Marcel Lemonde

15 September 2010

Location and creation

397.            The Prey Sar (S-24) labour camp was located outside of Phnom Penh, in the area of Wat Kdol, in the Dangkao district of Kandal province.¹⁷⁴⁴ According to the CPK system for demarcating administrative boundaries, Prey Sar came under Phnom Penh. Based on testimony collected, the main premises of S-24 extended from Prey Sar prison to the village of Chek. However, the whole S-24 centre covered a larger area.¹⁷⁴⁵ S-24 came into operation as a work site for S-21 when In Lorn alias Nat was Chairman of S-21, that is, before March 1976¹⁷⁴⁶ and remained in operation until 7 January 1979.¹⁷⁴⁷

Functioning

Structure and Personnel

398.            The function of the S-24 worksite was to reform and reeducate combatants¹⁷⁴⁸ and to provide food to supply S-21 and its branches.¹⁷⁴⁹ Duch explained that Prey Sar was part of S-21¹⁷⁵⁰ and that when he was appointed Chairman of S-21, this site came under his authority.¹⁷⁵¹ Nun Huy alias Huy Sre (also a member of the S-21 Committee) was responsible for the day-to-day operation of S-24¹⁷⁵² until his arrest in December 1978. [REDACTED] was then appointed as his replacement. ¹⁷⁵³

399.            Duch received regular reports informing him of its operation, the detainees' work regimes and the identities of those who were sent from S-24 to S-21 or to Choeng Ek. He also stated that he visited Prey Sar on four occasions.¹⁷⁵⁴ According to Duch, in the same manner as for S-21, the decision to send people to S-24 was taken by his superiors Son Sen and Nuon Chea, while the specific decision to send members of S-21's staff to S-24 for reeducation was taken by the S-21 Committee.¹⁷⁵⁵

Living and Working Conditions

400.            With regard to S-24, it is not possible to state with precision the number of people detained there on the basis of the existing evidence relating to lists of people. However, it clearly emerges that several hundred people were held there at one time,¹⁷⁵⁶ a figure that was confirmed by Duch.¹⁷⁵⁷ In the Duch judgment in Case File 001, the Trial Chamber noted that "the isolated and fragmentary documentation placed before it presents an incomplete picture of the numbers of those held, sent for execution, or surviving detention at S-24. for these reasons, the Chamber finds that the cumulative total detained at S-24 was no fewer than 1,300".¹⁷⁵⁸

401.            Several witnesses stated that men, women,¹⁷⁵⁹ and children were detained at S-24.¹⁷⁶⁰ According to Duch, the detainees fell into two main categories: firstly, persons whose relatives were considered suspects, and secondly, subordinates of arrested cadres.¹⁷⁶¹ Combatants from various units and civil servants from many ministries and departments around Phnom Penh were held there, along with members of their families.¹⁷⁶² Moreover, former staff members of S-21 were sent to S-24 to be reeducated.¹⁷⁶³ Duch stated that no foreigners (Vietnamese or Western) were sent to Prey Sar.¹⁷⁶⁴

402.            People sent to S-24 were first registered at a location along Street 360, near S-21. They were then taken to Prey Sar, where they were photographed and asked to provide a biography.¹⁷⁶⁵ S-24 was divided into three "groups": the first group was for the "better elements"; the second group was for fair elements; while the third unit was for "bad elements", who were considered guilty of the worst behaviour and required the harshest tempering.¹⁷⁶⁶

403.            In S-24, detainees were forced to work in order to be reeducated. There were imprisoned and closely watched, both at work¹⁷⁶⁷ and at night.¹⁷⁶⁸ The detention conditions were harsher for detainees of third group, who were shackled at night and could not live in ordinary houses.¹⁷⁶⁹

                                                                                                                                                                   

As for those lodged in houses, it appears that some of them were locked up at night. Duch maintained that those who were there were not "in prison" as it can be understood about those who were detained in S-21,¹⁷⁷² but admitted that the term "element" or "component" as used to describe people working in S-24 meant "detained and put to work" so that these people could no longer oppose the Party.¹⁷⁷³

404.            People detained in S-24, including women and children, worked in rice fields, fished, grew vegetables, carried out rice planting, built dykes and dug canals and ponds.¹⁷⁷⁴ Several witnesses stated that they worked day and night,¹⁷⁷⁵ seven days a week, and were not authorised to rest during working hours.¹⁷⁷⁶ A normal workday at S-24 began at dawn - between 4 am and 7 am - and ended between 10 pm and midnight,¹⁷⁷⁷ with two one-hour breaks for meals.¹⁷⁷⁸

405.            Former detainees indicated that they received two meals per day, at midday and in the

evening. Barring a few exceptions, the prisoners stated that the food rations at S-24 were insufficient¹⁷⁸¹ even though Duch explained that he would hand over surplus rice to the Central Committee.¹⁷⁸² Duch stated that he could not change the rations as fixed and that, in his view, the practice of depriving the prisoners of food was part of a deliberate policy.¹⁷⁸³ A number of detainees died as a result of the living and working conditions in Prey Sar.¹⁷⁸⁴

406.           Work was performed under the watchful eyes of guards¹⁷⁸⁵ for whom efficiency was imperative and who did not tolerate slowness on the part of the detainees.¹⁷⁸⁶ Prisoners who

were ill or who arrived late, or those whose work was considered unsatisfactory, were beaten and insulted.¹⁷⁸⁷ They were also punished when they were accused of "sexual misconduct", "being ill" or of "theft".¹⁷⁸⁸ Fear of being transferred¹⁷⁸⁹ or executed¹⁷⁹⁰ always loomed large.

407.            Regular reeducation sessions were held at S-24. During these sessions, the detainees, who were exhorted to work with speed and efficiency,¹⁷⁹¹ were subjected to political training and

1792                                                                                                 

indoctrination, and to self-assessment sessions.