Eloquently and firmly, two brothers of victims close the door to forgiveness

Kambol (Phnom Penh, Cambodia). 20/08/2009: Chum Sirath, 68-year-old civil party, on a screen in the press room at the ECCC during his testimony on Day 62 in Duch’s trial
©John Vink/ Magnum

Ka-set
http://cambodia.ka-set.info

By Stéphanie Gée
22-08-2009

Drama is an important component of justice. It helps write the key moments of a trial. Its impetus lies in eloquence, provocation, unsettling the opponent and historical perspective. To this day, this weapon – not to say this necessity – has mostly been the prerogative of the defence. During this week of powerful and moving testimonies, civil parties stole the show from Duch. Thursday August 20th, Mr Chum Sirath spoke to the court. Humourous, incisive, pertinent, sensitive, sometimes lawyer, sometimes prosecutor, he cornered Duch, who lost some of his eloquence. His performance crudely recalled the near-inexistence of the prosecution in Duch’s trial. Like Chum Sirath, Mr Ou Savrith, who testified from France, left no chance for any forgiveness to the accused.

A civil party at ease
Until the last minute, like all the other civil parties who preceded him, Mr Sirath, 68 years old, was not feeling too confident. Talking in public and in a trial about the suffering his relatives must have been through and the deep affliction cast on his family by this tragedy was a dauting challenge. Yet, as soon as he entered the courtroom, Mr Sirath managed to show a level of ease only Duch had demonstrated until then. With the difference that the civil party was on the right side of the courtroom. The director of an IT company in Cambodia, who has French and Cambodian nationality, was bereaved of two brothers, a sister-in-law and probably the latter’s baby, all eliminated at S-21.

People categorisation: a Cambodian tradition
The civil party painted the picture of an impoverished family in which the parents conveyed to the children the importance of school, a springboard for social mobility. In the 1960s, Chum Sirath found himself in France thanks to a scholarship while his elder brother, Chum Narith, provided for the household after giving up the long studies promised by his good results at school. This brother, a teacher, was arrested in 1968 by Norodom Sihanouk’s political police, known for its rough methods, Chum Sirath pursued. Other intellectuals, including Duch himself, were arrested at the time.

Kambol (Phnom Penh, Cambodia). 20/08/2009: Villagers who came to attend Day 62 in Duch’s trial at the ECCC were temporarily confiscated their flashlights before entering the public gallery ©John Vink/ Magnum

“Public executions of right-wing opponents like Preap In were filmed and shown at the movies, so that those who went to the cinema would not forget these images. Back then, people were classified into two categories: Blue Khmer and Red Khmer. In Democratic Kampuchea, people were also categorised into two types: KGB or CIA agents or Vietnamese supporters, but also between ‘new people’ and ‘old people.’ It was a habit that already existed before Democratic Kampuchea,” noted the engineer from the Ecole nationale supérieure des télécommunications in Paris.

A time when intellectuals were often left-wing
His brother Narith was “an intellectual like many others, a left-winger, a liberal.” At the same time, Chum Sirath recalled, the events of May 1968 were happening in France. “It was a time when a lot of people were left-wing and Maoists. It was a little similar in Cambodia. […] Being left-wing meant being against the war, in particular the Vietnam War. Left-wingers were also against social injustice. […] As a teacher, Narith cared a lot about the future of the young people, those who were unemployed.” As the number of unfair arrests multiplied, his brother got increasingly involved in the opposition movement.

The regret of not grouping his family in Europe in time
In 1973, Narith was accused by the police – the Republican one, this time – of being the leader of a demonstration of teachers demanding salary increases. He decided to go underground and joined Hu Nim in the propaganda team of the “liberated zone” under Khmer Rouge control. Then, Chum Sirath moved on to his other brother, Sinareth, a medicine student, who was also arrested in 1976, when he was 28 (Narith was 33). He was the closest to their mother in the family of nine children, he confided and evoked the great complicity between Narith and Sinareth. As he gave more biographical details on his brothers, Chum Sirath exclaimed: “I have to be more concise, otherwise I’ll bore you!” The tone was set.

In November 1974, Chum Sirath was appointed to be Cambodia’s representative to United Nations bodies in Geneva. He hoped his family would join him a few months later. “But in April 1975, it all changed. My dream vanished and I will regret it all my life. […] I did not react fast enough. I did not understand that the situation in Cambodia, torn by war, was going to deteriorate in the following months. I miscalculated and it is something that I regret to this day.”

The French Embassy episode
In a digression, he returned to the “tragedy” that unfolded at the French Embassy in Cambodia, in that fateful month of April 1975. “Under the pressure of the new Khmer Rouge leaders, the consul, Mr Jean Dyrac, did not evict the Cambodians, but he had to make those who were not French citizens leave the Embassy. […] It is now up to historians to say what happened and characterise the decision made by Jean Dyrac at the time.” In France, he was advised not to return to Cambodia because, he was told, Cambodians who had been educated in France were immediately targeted with accusations.

“Why not kill them immediately?”
Chum Sirath did some research and discovered that in his confession, Hu Nim accused his brother Chum Narith of criticising the collectivisation of the economy implemented by the Khmer Rouge regime. Shortly afterwards, in October 1976, he was arrested. The witness wondered aloud: how could one believe such confessions extracted under torture? As for Sinareth, Chum Sirath assumed he was arrested with his wife suffering the same fate in his wake.

When he came back to Cambodia in 1993, to gather evidence on the disappearance of his brothers, he discovered in the Tuol Sleng lists that Narith was imprisoned there on October 29th 1976 and died on January 7th 1977. So, he spent “64 days” at the S-21 prison where he was “tortured, dehumanised and killed.” Chum Sirath got carried away: “Why not kill them immediately, without torturing them?” At these words, Duch – whom the civil party regularly turned to – had a smile difficult to interpret. At the death anteroom, the engineer also found the trace of his other brother, Sinareth, and Narith’s wife, Kem Sovannary, he continued.

Two conflicting feelings co-existing
“Your Honour, I am proud to be a Cambodian and this tribunal offers the accused a chance to express his feelings. But the civil parties must also express themselves.” He then cited the names of all those who preceded him. “And all those persons you have heard talked about their search for the truth. All their stories are different but they do share one thing in common: despair, this feeling of failing to understand what happened, as well as the grief and pain that have accompanied these people for thirty years. As for me, I have fought, I constantly fight, every day, not to forget this suffering and the distress my relatives endured. At the same time, I am trying to forget because I have a duty to the survivors, the people who live with me. I would say that these two conflicting feelings have been in me for over thirty years and I cannot separate them.”

An unsatisfying written reply of the accused
Chum Sirath said he wrote to the accused, who replied he did not know the answers to his questions regarding the fate of his brothers. Yet, he argued, Duch – and he pointed at him – studied with his younger brother at the National Institute of Pedagogy and met Narith when they were underground. “He knew my two brothers but as soon as he came to S-21, he said he did not know anyone anymore […]. He no longer had time to do anything else except for his work. […] I cannot believe that. Kaing Guek Eav, alias Duch, always says he was only a subordinate, he acted only as a subordinate, he was not a high leader, and he only did what he did upon orders. […] But then, why is he accused of crimes? That’s because he is believed to be one of those most responsible [for these crimes].” The civil party had turned his body towards the accused, as if to place him before his responsibilities more firmly. Duch continued to wince with grimaces and smiles. He no longer had his usual impassive face as Chum Sirath’s declarations stirred reactions in him.

The stoicism of the accused deemed inappropriate
“If the policy of the Communist Party of Kampuchea was to execute these people, it had to be respected. But why torture people to extract their confessions while, as [Duch] said, the contents of these confessions was not credible? During his testimony, David Chandler said of the accused that his job as S-21 director had not made him lose his sleep. […] Until Vorn Vet came to S-21 in 1978, he did his work everyday. Also, Duch compares himself to a wolf [Duch smiled again] with this poem by Alfred de Vigny he recited to us [on April 6th in court], entitled ‘The Death of the Wolf.’” Chum Sirath reviewed the history of the poem. “What is the moral of this poem?” He then also recited the last verses in French:

“Moaning, weeping, praying is equally cowardly.
Staunchly carry out your long and heavy task
In the path to which Fate saw fit to call you,
Then, later, as I do, suffer and die in silence.”

Kambol (Phnom Penh, Cambodia). 20/08/2009: Duch listening to the testimony of civil party Chum Sirath
©John Vink/ Magnum

Hearing those words, Duch nodded and seemed engrossed in a state of ecstasy. He did not anticipate Chum Sirath’s shot at him. “What does that mean? […] That the accused compares himself to the wolf that dies in silence. […] After he recited the poem, there was silence for a couple of minutes. Everything stopped. You could have heard a pin drop. […] Maybe people felt sorry for the accused. It was a smart trick that was used before this Chamber. Maybe they [Duch and his international lawyer] could start a duo in a play in France? But when the accused made such a comparison, it was a masquerade. He is trying to present himself as someone stoic, someone who works without thinking about his own suffering and the difficulty of his life, like the French soldiers sent to war. […] But what kind of bravery are we talking about here? For instance, in the case of his teacher, who was imprisoned at S-21, he knew she had been tortured and degraded. Yet, he did not raise one finger to help her. What is that kind of bravery? […]” He then cited the example of Him Huy who protected Saom Meth (heard by the Chamber on August 11th), when the latter was bound for certain detention after his brother was arrested.

The defence calls for more serenity in the hearing
The defence counsel intervened and requested the president to remind the civil party to “refocus his testimony” to preserve “serenity in the hearing.” The observation was considered “pertinent” by the president, who called Chum Sirath to “control his emotions” and only discuss facts related to his case. Nil Nonn added: “The objective of this tribunal is to provide justice, not vengeance…” That was not enough to diminish Chum Sirath’s ardour and determination, as he daringly repeated the accused was only an “impostor.” The public was hung on his every word.

Duch’s conversion to Christianity… motivated by self-interest?
In conclusion, the civil party wanted to discuss Duch’s conversion from Buddhism to Christianity (in 1996). “In Christianity, Cain […] killed his brother and could never escape his brother’s eyes. He never felt at peace again. […] He asked to be buried but his brother’s eyes followed him into his grave. […] Duch converted to Christianity and he is asking for forgiveness today. But in Buddhism, only good is rewarded with good. Here, there are thirty-two thousand eyes [those of the S-21 victims] following the accused. And I wonder how the accused will ever manage to hide.”

A call made and heard
Like the other civil parties, Chum Sirath came with his family album. He presented the photographs of his disappeared relatives and, when showing that of his sister-in-law, he made a “call to whoever might recognise Kem Sovannary, nicknamed Darn, wife of Chum Narith” to contact him. The magic worked. Within the hour, the tribunal was contacted by a person claiming to be Kem Sovannary’s brother. He lived in Preah Vihear and followed the day’s hearing from home, on his television. For more than thirty years, Chum Sirath had failed to find his brother’s in-laws. This episode, which deeply moved those who witnessed it, also confirmed the Cambodian population followed the trial.

Duch’s apologies have lost their sincerity as the trial unfolded
At this stage in the trial, the civil party explained he perceived Duch’s apologies in a different light. “At the beginning, I was happy to hear the apologies made by the accused. I thought that at last, there was at least one of the Democratic Kampuchea leaders who was brave and recognised the facts. I wanted to believe him. […] But the more I got involved in the trial, the more that feeling diminished. I believe his apologies are not sincere. Why? On March 31st 2009, the accused made a highly noticed declaration. I quote him: ‘Currently, I feel remorse and shame as a person who has to answer to the Cambodian people. To comfort myself, I pray for forgiveness. I ask forgiveness from my parents, I ask forgiveness from my mentors, and I pray for forgiveness from the Cambodian people. On November 17th, every year – on my birthday –, I have a little prayer ceremony.’ In that declaration by the accused, he said he ‘prays.’ But he is not praying for the souls of those who died for them to rest in peace. He is praying for himself to feel better.”

Chum Sirath also quoted words spoken by Duch on July 9th in court, in response to a question from a lawyer for civil party Chim Meth, who asked him to say whether his emotional responsibility also applied in the case of that survivor. The accused had replied he was not “emotionally responsible” but “responsible before the law.” The civil party exclaimed: “In the name of my late brothers, Kem Sovannary and my nephew, I want to declare before this Chamber that I cannot accept these requests for forgiveness that are not sincere. I am here to seek justice and justice also means truth. I have been waiting for justice for 34 years!”

Duch: “I did not want to find myself before a dilemma”
The accused was given the floor to react to Chum Sirath’s testimony. “I would like to repeat that there were not many former friends who were arrested and detained at S-21. […] I moved away from those I appreciated. I did not want to find myself before a dilemma. Both Chum Sinareth and Chum Narith were among the friends whose face I did not want to see. Because everyone who was arrested was considered as an enemy. When you speak about more than 30,000 eyes, I am becoming aware of this question. I recently clarified I accepted everything the civil parties said and I am ready for them to point their finger at me. They can punish me with any punishment they wish to see imposed on me. I accept that punishment.”

An accused who says he is “sincere,” a president who loses it
Duch looked at the audience at times, at Chum Sirath at others. “I am not contesting. I am completely sincere. I am honest. I feel compassion for all those lost souls. […] Sincerely, I do not contest, out of a spirit of vengeance, the words you have spoken, and I recognise.” Then, the accused announced he wanted to make observations related to “historical facts.” He took up an element he said he heard from the civil party, who immediately intervened to correct him with a sharp “I did not say that.” Did the president dread a verbal escalation between the accused and the civil party he would be unable to control? To the general surprise and in what appeard like a fit, Nil Nonn asked Duch to immediately put an end to his observations. “We don’t want to hear anything more.” He declared Chum Sirath’s statement reached its end and promptly had him removed, before calling the next civil party to the stand. Everyone was left wide-eyed, including the international judges. In the end, the defence finally reacted and requested their client be allowed to finish his observations, in accordance with the rules. The president consented, after calling Duch to keep to facts relevant to the hearing. The accused resumed but one struggled to grasp where he was driving at.

“Two dates and thousands of questions”
Ou Savrith was heard through video conference from France, where he lives. The Cambodian, who took French nationality, joined as civil party for his elder brother, Ou Windy, who was executed at S-21. “I have so many expectations from this trial that I feel particularly moved today,” started the director of a real estate network, whose voice got lost at times in echoes and mini-breaks.

Kambol (Phnom Penh, Cambodia). 20/08/2009: Ou Savrith, civil party and brother of a S-21 victim, Ou Windy, was heard by the ECCC through video conference from France
©Stéphanie Gée

His brother, “who graduated from ENA, the Ecole nationale d'administration [French National School of Administration], had a beautiful career before him” and was also a father, Ou Savrith said. “He was a brother like many would dream of,” he summarised. “Late 1979, I saw his name on the list of people arrested at S-21. From then on, I had two dates and thousands of questions on my mind. Two dates: February 13th 1976, the laconic date he entered S-21, and May 20th 1976, the date he was executed. It has since been thirty years I have thought of him every day. Thirty years, that’s 10,950 days and nights thinking about what happened at S-21. My suffering today is completely and intimately connected with that of my brother’s wife, his daughter and my two sisters who live in France.”

No possible pity
He read a few lines written by his niece: “I was deeply hurt by not having a father by my side during the important events in my life. […] I would have given anything to see pride on his face when I obtained my baccalauréat [high school diploma] or when I passed my exams and got my first job […]. In the name of my father, I refuse to forgive because granting forgiveness would mean saying that nothing serious was done, admitting that the atrocities perpetrated do not affect us that much. Granting forgiveness means feeling pity. But how can one pity a man who took so many lives? Did he pity the women, children and men he had killed?”

Seeking moral reparation
Ou Savrith said he did not ask for “any financial or material reparation. […] I only want to know what happened during those 97 days and 50 pages of confessions.” “Only one person, my wife, knows about the martyr I went through during those 10,950 nights, waking up regularly, with a jolt, screaming and crying, unable to express my suffering in any other way. As for any Cambodian, reserve is the rule. We all internalise our feelings. The effort I am making before you today is enormous but necessary. For me, it is through this testimony that some kind of reparation is starting.”

The wounded soul of a brother who refuses to reincarnate
The day he visited S-21 in 1992, he was overwhelmed by a feeling of injustice: “Why did they do that? Why did the international community forget us? Why did the international community not believe the stories of survivors from the start?” During that first return to his country, he said he met a psychic who made contact with the spirit of his late brother. Ou Windy told him he was “sad and terrified,” had “suffered a lot in the human world” and did not want to reincarnate. His soul found refuge in a pagoda, placing itself under the monks’ protection. The young woman told him the name of that pagoda, where Savrith went to on the next day to organise a ceremony there. “I can say that from now on, every time I enter a pagoda, I will look at the ceiling because maybe my brother was not the only one to take refuge there to no longer be reincarnated and ask for Buddha’s protection.”

“There will be no forgiveness”
Like for the other civil parties, Duch was unable to enlighten Ou Savrith on the fate met by his brother at S-21. “Are you ready to forgive the accused who has expressed his remorse?”, his lawyer asked Ou Savrith from Phnom Penh. “As for the accused’s request for forgiveness and remorse, in the name of all my family, we will not forgive because forgiveness has [died – Editor’s note: this is an assumption as the actual word was not heard due to a break in transmission] in the death camps and today, there is only [unheard] and distress left. So, the answer is as clear as can be: there will be no forgiveness.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A civil party tossed around
Mrs Chum Naov, 60 years old, was detained at S-24 (Prey Sar). She was unable to save her baby and lost her husband at S-21. She started testifying following Mr Chum Sirath, by late morning. However, the civil party did not resume her testimony after lunch break, as Mr Ou Savrith was scheduled to be heard through video conference. She was then called back by mid-afternoon, but hardly got a chance to speak. Technical problems with sound quickly appeared and paralysed the trial, as the debates could no longer be heard. One waited, waited… but nothing happened. She will be summoned again next week.