DUCH PORTRAYED AS SELFLESS STUDENT AND DEDICATED TEACHER

September 1, 2009

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

The tribunal heard the testimony of four witnesses who knew the Accused
Person, Kaing Guek Eav (alias Duch) when he was a student and a teacher.
However, before these character witnesses testified, the defense finished
its questioning of the expert witnesses Francoise Sironi-Guildbaud and Ka
Sunbaunat. Through his questioning, international defense counsel Francois
Roux attempted to demonstrate the sincerity of Duch’s remorse which has been
a hotly contested issue throughout the proceedings. He recounted to the
experts Duch’s acts and statements, such as Duch’s emotional apology and
voluntary participation in the re-enactment at Tuol Sleng prison (S-21) and
Choeung Ek.

Roux also revisited the issue of Duch’s ability to be rehabilitated which
was contested by the prosecution yesterday. He recalled the experts’
statements that a person is not born an executioner, but that one becomes an
executioner. Using this same logic, the experts agreed that a person such as
Duch could be made “human” again. In other words, he could be rehabilitated
and reintegrated into society.

Witnesses describe Duch’s personality as a student and a teacher

Duch’s former high school classmate, Sou Sat, described him as a kind and
generous student. While many students were reluctant to help others, Duch
was always willing to help his classmates and share his knowledge.
Furthermore, she never witnessed any verbal, physical, or intellectual
conflicts between Duch and any other student or teacher. (The trial chamber
permitted Sou Sat to visit Duch after her testimony, as is common practice
in international criminal proceedings.)

Regarding his more recent years as a teacher, Duch’s former high school
students, Tep Sem and Tep Sok, described him as a dedicated teacher. Tep Sem
described Duch as a humble and attentive teacher who did not care about the
social class of his students. Duch, he explained, offered free private
tutoring to students who needed additional help. Tep Sok described Duch as a
kind and gentle teacher. He explained that Duch would donate books to his
students and was always available to students who needed extra help. Chou
Vin, who taught alongside Duch at a school in the Phkoam village from 1995
until 1997, also explained that Duch was well-liked and well-respected by
his students, who would sometimes refer to him as “grandpa teacher.”

These witnesses all expressed shock upon learning of Duch’s role as chairman
of S-21. Tep Sok described a feeling of regret when he heard the news
because he viewed Duch as a virtuous man who turned into a criminal. Sou Sat
was “stunned and terrorized” when she found out that one of Duch’s former
professors was detained and executed at S-21.

Civil Party lawyers attempt to express clients’ discontent with trial
chamber

Today, the civil party lawyers continued to voice their clients’ discontent
with the court’s decision that barred civil party questioning of character
witnesses. At the start of the session, civil party lawyer Alain Werner
asked the trial chamber for permission to read into the record the open
letter from the civil parties. The trial chamber denied Werner’s request and
suggested that he resubmit the letter to the court.

Later in the day, and on several different occasions, lawyers for the civil
parties asked the chamber to explain to the witnesses why the civil parties
were not present in the courtroom. The civil party lawyers argued that it
was important for the witnesses to know the reason for which they would not
be asked questions from civil party lawyers. However, the requests seemed to
be motivated primarily by a desire to force the court to acknowledge the
discontent of the civil parties. The tribunal therefore predictably denied
their first request. After the second, the tribunal expressed its
frustration by the repetitiveness of these requests. Finally, after the
third request, the tribunal disconnected the civil party microphones and
informed them that they would be prohibited for intervening during the
remainder of character witness testimonies. Today’s events further strained
the relationship between the court and the civil parties. The civil parties
felt that their rights had been unduly restricted, and now feel that the
court is unwilling to hear what they perceive to be their legitimate
complaints.

The lawyers for civil party groups two and four were absent for the second
consecutive day. No indication has been given to explain their absence and
it is unclear if it is related to the boycott. Given today’s developments,
the remaining civil party lawyers may elect not to attend the proceedings
until the conclusion of character witness testimony.