CIVIL PARTIES SHARE STORIES OF SORROW

August 18, 2009

By Michael Saliba, J.D. (Northwestern Law ’09), Consultant to the Center for
International Human Rights, Northwestern University School of Law

Today, the court continued to hear testimony from the civil parties in the
trial of Kaing Guek Eav (alias Duch). During the last two days, the court
has received the testimony of seven civil parties and is thus progressing at
a quicker pace than scheduled.

“Never, never will I forgive him”

The morning session began with the testimony of Antonia Tioulong, a French
national of Cambodian parents. Her sister, Raingsy Tioulong and her brother
in law, Lim Ki-Mari, were both detained as prisoners at Tuol Sleng prison
(S-21) and executed. Antonia Tioulong testified in her capacity as a civil
party, but was also there as a spokesperson for her entire family.

Her father was a high ranking official affiliated with the government of
Prince Sihanouk. Due to his prominent role in that government, the Tioulong
family was exiled from Cambodia in 1970 after Lon Nol took control of the
country. Despite this order, Raingsy Tioulong decided to stay in Cambodia
and was able to do so by using her husband’s name. Raingsy and her husband
did not want to uproot their life in Cambodia where she worked as an anchor
for a French radio station and he worked as a banker. However, as the
political and security situation deteriorated in Cambodia , Raingsy sent her
children to Paris to receive a good education in a safe environment. The
family last heard from Raingsy in March of 1975. Thereafter they endured
many difficult years of silence. After the fall of the Khmer Rouge, France
opened its borders to many Cambodian refugees. However, Raingsy and her
husband were not among those who made it to French soil for they had already
perished at the hands of the horrific regime.

The Tioulong family was later reunited with cousins who had made it to
France as refugees. The stories they recounted were horrifying. They had
gone through hell – but they could be considered the lucky ones. The family
had to relay the terrible news that Raingsy and her husband were not so
lucky, for they had not survived the brutal regime. They had been imprisoned
and executed at S-21. This news was devastating and came as a tremendous
shock to the Tioulong family.

The family members had a very difficult time coping with their loss and
everyone managed to grieve in their own way. Raingsy’s children developed
many psychological problems. Psychiatrists confirmed that their symptoms
were directly linked to the trauma relating to the death of their parents.
They could not appear in court because they were not ready to face the
accused. Antonia Tioulong had lost a sister, her parents had lost a
daughter, and her nieces and nephews had lost a mother.

She emphasized that an apology is not enough for justice to be done and she
urged the tribunal to punish Duch in a manner which is commensurate with the
crimes he committed. She noted that during the Nuremberg trials, many of
those who were found guilty were sentenced to death. She did not seem to be
insinuating that she hoped this tribunal would mimic the Nuremburg courts in
its sentencing, but rather was simply illustrating the gravity of his crimes
from a historical perspective. (The death penalty is a prohibited form of
punishment in this tribunal.) She lamented the fact that while Duch was
receiving a fair trial and being given adequate accommodations, all of his
victims were denied those basic rights. For that, she stated emphatically,
“Never, never will I forgive him.”

Cambodian Civil Parties Testify

The chamber then called Hav Sophea to testify about the loss of her father,
Chan Sea , at S-21. Her father was a soldier but was arrested in 1976 and was
executed on the 15th of May of the same year. Just like Ouk Neary, one of
yesterday’s civil parties, Sophea never knew her father, but still suffered
terribly from his disappearance and death. She was born 21 days subsequent
to Chan Sea ’s arrest. She and her mother had to wait many years before
receiving information regarding the circumstances of his death.

Sophea tearfully described growing up without a father as a “struggle to
hold on to life.” The absence of her father caused the family financial,
physical, and emotional hardship. Her dream was to become a school teacher
but she had to quit school at grade seven because her mother had no more
money to continue funding her studies. When her mom finally received
documentation showing that her husband had been executed at S-21, she burst
into tears. Her mother did not apply to become a civil party because she
still cannot face the accused. Sophea described her own suffering and the
pain that she felt – a pain that was magnified by the realization that her
father died under such cruel circumstances. After her own visit to S-21, she
sustained recurring and vivid nightmares. She explained emotionally that she
had never seen his face when he was alive, but could not escape his image
after his death.

The third civil party called to testify was So Song. Like countless others,
she lost her brother-in-law at the hands of the Khmer Rouge regime. Before
her testimony got underway, the civil party and defense lawyers held an
intensive exchange over the admissibility of the civil party’s testimony.
The defense argued that there were enough discrepancies with the documents
provided to call into question the civil party’s actual relationship to the
brother in law, and whether he was in fact detained and executed at S-21.
Despite the fact that it is the civil party who bears the burden of proof to
provide a link between the civil party and the accused, the President
decided first to hear the testimony and only later to determine the
probative value of such testimony based on the veracity of the witness.

So Song represented her sister as a civil party because her sister was too
ill to testify on her own. She explained that she had been living with her
sister and her brother-in-law since she was seven years old. Her
relationship with them was as much a relationship of parent-child as it was
of sibling-sibling. Song explained that after they learned of her
brother-in-law’s death, her and her sister’s life began to deteriorate. She
concluded emotionally, “He was a dear husband, a dear father, and a dear
brother – we all cried.”

The final civil party to be called was Neth Phally. Both he and his brother
were in the same military unit. His brother was seriously wounded in battle
in 1978 and was sent to the hospital in Phnom Penh . There, Neth went to see
him twice. Upon his third visit, Neth found only an empty hospital room. No
one could tell him where his brother was transferred. He never saw his
brother again. He searched for his brother for many months with no success.
Evidence surfaced in 2004 demonstrating that Neth’s brother had been sent to
S-21 and executed. This news deeply saddened Neth and his family. Neth
Phally still lives with great suffering with the knowledge that his brother
perished at S-21, a prison where detainees were not only executed, but were
tortured in a most horrific manner.