Excerpt from "Witness Rochoem Ton Faces Questions from the Bench and Defense Teams on Third Day of Testimony"
July 31, 2012
By Erica Embree, JD/LLM (International Human Rights) candidate, Class of 2015, Northwestern University School of Law
Mr. Ianuzzi Examines the Witness on Ministry Personnel
Returning from the lunch break, President Nonn reminded the witness to listen carefully to the questions posed to him and to avoid any irrelevant comments. He then gave the floor to Mr. Ianuzzi to examine the witness.
First, Mr. Ianuzzi asked questions relating to B-1, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the witness’s position there. The witness confirmed that he was in charge of B-1’s administration section and that he was in charge overall of psychologically and politically “controlling or administering the people” there. Further, he confirmed that he was personally involved with selecting people to work at B-1.
For his next set of questions, Mr. Ianuzzi focused on specific individuals at the Ministry, first asking whether someone by the alias Mut worked at the Ministry while the witness was in charge. Mr. Rochoem confirmed that Mut worked in the Ministry and further testified that the individual, known as Mut in the Ministry, was named Keat Chhun. Regarding this man’s position and responsibilities at B-1, Mr. Rochoem testified that Keat Chhun was responsible for writing speeches and “when there was a delegation he had the duty to engage in the negotiation and keeping the records.” Mr. Ianuzzi asked for an example regarding such negotiations, such as whether he participated in border talks with Vietnam. The witness replied that border negotiations were not occurring then. He indicated that Keat Chhun dealt with Chinese delegations, and had diplomatic calls. When asked whether he knew of Keat Chhun’s involvement in formulating any policies, Mr. Rochoem reiterated that Keat Chhun handled diplomatic calls. He also stated that Keat Chhun handled speeches to be given at the United Nations and the Non-Aligned Countries. When asked whether Mr. Rochoem went with King Sihanouk on a trip to New York to meet with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the witness replied that he “did not know who he went to see.”
Mr. Ianuzzi referred to testimony given to the Chamber by another witness, describing that the witness stated, “If Keat Chhun had to be removed from the Ministry, it would grind to a halt.” Mr. Ianuzzi asked the witness whether he agreed with this assessment. After Assistant Prosecutor Dale Lysak objected that this mischaracterized the prior witness’s testimony, Mr. Ianuzzi rephrased, asking if there would have been notable repercussions if Keat Chhun was taken from the Ministry. National Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer Pich Ang objected that the question was hypothetical. President Nonn instructed the witness that he did not have to answer. Mr. Ianuzzi tried to respond to the objection, but President Nonn said that the court had already ruled on the matter.
After Mr. Ianuzzi commented on his prior question’s relevancy, President Nonn instructed Mr. Ianuzzi to stick to facts alleged within the Closing Order. In response to this instruction, Mr. Ianuzzi referred to the section of the Closing Order that said Keat Chhun was a “senior B-1 cadre” and inquired whether Mr. Rochoem would agree with this assessment. The witness confirmed that Keat Chhun was a senior cadre at the B-1, particularly, according the witness, “in dealing with the outside politics as he had a lot of knowledge in this area.” Mr. Ianuzzi then questioned whether Mr. Rochoem was aware of the reason Keat Chhun would not provide testimony to the OCIJ, also asking whether the government was concerned about him giving testimony. Before the witness responded, Mr. Ianuzzi noted that there were two objections being made. President Nonn instructed the witness that he did not need to reply the question.
In response to the ruling, Mr. Ianuzzi attempted to quote from two individuals, reading, “We are of the view that no reasonable trier of fact could have failed to consider that one or more members of the RGC – that’s the Royal Government of Cambodia – may have knowingly or will... .” Before the counsel could complete his statement, President Nonn cut off Mr. Ianuzzi’s microphone, ruling that the question was irrelevant to the facts contained in the Closing Order. President Nonn further noted, “The procedure of summoning this individual or that individual is beyond your capacity.” He instructed counsel to follow Internal Rule 92 regarding written submissions relating to the Chamber’s procedure. Mr. Ianuzzi indicated that his team would make “voluminous closing submissions.” Mr. Ianuzzi asked the bench if their position was that he cannot respond on the record to objections. President Nonn explained that the Chamber “exercised its discretion to avoid any unnecessary questions or comments which are not trying to ascertain the truth.” He reminded counsel that he was given the floor to question the witness, not to assert “political statements or comments.”
Mr. Ianuzzi returned to questioning the witness by referring to the witness’s prior testimony wherein Mr. Rochoem referred to an individual named Hor Namhong in connection to Boeng Trabek and indicated that this individual fled to France and returned to Cambodia to take up a “very senior position here.” The witness confirmed that this was correct. Regarding whether Hor Namhong held a position in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the witness stated that Hor Namhhong was at the Ministry for a short time and that he thought it was in 1978. He added that Hor Namhong was also a part of Thiounn Prasith’s group and Keat Chhun’s group.
Regarding what B-32 is, the witness replied that it is a “mobile office for the leadership.” Referring to the same witness he brought up earlier, Mr. Ianuzzi said that that witness had testified, “So far as I recollect … he [Hor Namhong] spent a longer time at Boeng Trabek.” The witness confirmed that this assertion was correct and described Hor Namhong as being “within the circle of the leadership” before he came to the Ministry. Regarding whether Hor Namhong was ever the Chairman or Vice Chairman of Boeng Trabek, Mr. Rochoem stated that he was in charge of Boeng Trabek “when the Ministry representative went to receive him.”
Mr. Ianuzzi asked the witness whether he was aware of the reason why Hor Namhong refused to appear before the tribunal, again adding the question of whether the government was concerned about him giving testimony. President Nonn directed the witness not to respond. Mr. Ianuzzi pressed on, however, reading the following: “Further investigations are warranted for two reasons. First, the Chamber is under an obligation to ensure the integrity of the proceedings is preserved. Two, preventing testimony from witnesses that have been deemed conducive to ascertaining the truth may infringe upon….” His microphone was again cut off, and President Nonn recognized Mr. Lysak. Mr. Lysak first identified that Mr. Ianuzzi was reading from a Pre-Trial Chamber decision and then argued that it was inappropriate to ask the witness to speculate. He added, “When counsel asks questions that are annoyingly improper, I think it is entirely appropriate for the Court to rule on objections without hearing sustained argument.” Mr. Ianuzzi said he disagreed and argued that he has a right to make a record. He also noted that he had been reading from the dissenting opinion of two Pre-Trial Chamber judges, adding that his team adopted these judges’ position. President sustained the prosecution’s objection.
