"Long Visalo’s claims of being a prisoner was incorrect. He was certainly not the victim of the Khmer Rouge, but an accomplish to the Khmer Rouge crimes at best, and a perpetrator and an architect of the Khmer Rouge crimes at worst."
Editorial by Khmerization: - The Hor Namhong-Sam Rainsy’s legal dogfight has entered a critical phase- gathering evidences and assembling witnesses.
The opposing camps are actively working hard to gather evidences to boost their legal chance. And one side has claimed to have assembled and lined up a troop of witnesses. While both sides seem to be so sure that they have enough evidences to prove their respective case, it is not sure if what they have got have any legal weight commensurate with international standard to prove such a defamation case.
On the one hand, the Sam Rainsy camp seemed to have enough documented evidences to back up his accusations against Hor Namhong. He can still find victims and survivors of the Boeng Trabek Prison who can testify for him. But to convince and to persuade them to come forward and testify against Hor Namhong would be an uphill task, considering that Cambodia and the Cambodian courts are at Hor Namhong‘s disposal.
On the other hand, the Hor Namhong camp has declared that they have solicited the supports of two (not) high profile witnesses: Duch and Long Visalo. Many written accounts seemed to suggest that these two were both perpetrators of heinous crimes, not victims of those crimes as they had claimed. So many people would be of the view that the testimonies of these two witnesses, due to their associations with the Khmer Rouge crimes in the past, lack credibility.
Let’s look at the history and profile of these two individuals. First, let’s examine Duch’s past. Duch was a director of one of the most notorious extermination centres in the world, where in excess of 16,000 prisoners were brutally tortured, then executed. He is currently being detained awaiting trial on crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity. In any sense, a criminal who was accused of the same crimes that he will be called to testify against would not be a credible witness. He is being detained and guarded by the Cambodian police, and therefore he is at the mercy of the Cambodian authority and so would say anything to get a good deal for his upcoming sentence. As such, in an independent judiciary, his testimony would be tainted and inadmissible as evidences.
It is rather interesting for another witness, Long Visalo, to re-emerge at this critical time of truth-searching for the Khmer rouge crimes. He will not be a credible witness either because he was part of the crimes that he is called to defend. One does not need to look any further than Visalo’s own admission to prove that he was the perpetrator of the Khmer Rouge brutalities, and not the victim of those crimes. With such admission as “I was assigned to prepare a re-education camp in Boeng Trabek” proved that Long Visalo was not a prisoner of Boeng Trabek, but in fact an administrator of this re-education centre. To re-phrase Visalo's own words, he was the one who set up the Boeng Trabek Prison. Visalo went on to say that “I undertook several political sessions with Angkar’s leading cadre when I lived in Phnom Penh between 1976-1979”. These admissions proved that he was a leading Khmer Rouge cadre, who was actively participating in the Khmer Rouge day-to-day’s affairs such as administering the Boeng Trabek Prison and training and indoctrinating Khmer Rouge cadres.
It must be noted that only leading Khmer Rouge cadres were ever allowed to take part in a political sessions with ‘Angkar’s leading cadre” because the Khmer Rouge regime was a very secretive organisation. No one from outside, let a lone a prisoner like Long Visalo, would be allowed to take part in those very secretive political sessions.
Long Visalo’s shady pasts have been revealed by many Western historians and experts of the Khmer Rouge regime. In many books written by experts of the Khmer Rouge regime, it was claimed that, during the Khmer Rouge regime, Long Visalo worked at the Foreign Ministry and held a position equivalent to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs. He worked along side Ieng Sary and was very close to him. As an official of the Foreign Ministry, Visalo’s day-to-day job was to train Khmer Rouge cadres in foreign affairs and international relations at either the Institut Technique Khmer-Sovietique or at the former University of Phnom Penh.
Long Visalo’s claims of being a prisoner was incorrect. He was certainly not the victim of the Khmer Rouge, but an accomplish to the Khmer Rouge crimes at best, and a perpetrator and an architect of the Khmer Rouge crimes at worst.
So, are Duch and Long Visalo credible witnesses in the Hor Namhong’s defamation case against Sam Rainsy? The answer is a resounding “no“!
The opposing camps are actively working hard to gather evidences to boost their legal chance. And one side has claimed to have assembled and lined up a troop of witnesses. While both sides seem to be so sure that they have enough evidences to prove their respective case, it is not sure if what they have got have any legal weight commensurate with international standard to prove such a defamation case.
On the one hand, the Sam Rainsy camp seemed to have enough documented evidences to back up his accusations against Hor Namhong. He can still find victims and survivors of the Boeng Trabek Prison who can testify for him. But to convince and to persuade them to come forward and testify against Hor Namhong would be an uphill task, considering that Cambodia and the Cambodian courts are at Hor Namhong‘s disposal.
On the other hand, the Hor Namhong camp has declared that they have solicited the supports of two (not) high profile witnesses: Duch and Long Visalo. Many written accounts seemed to suggest that these two were both perpetrators of heinous crimes, not victims of those crimes as they had claimed. So many people would be of the view that the testimonies of these two witnesses, due to their associations with the Khmer Rouge crimes in the past, lack credibility.
Let’s look at the history and profile of these two individuals. First, let’s examine Duch’s past. Duch was a director of one of the most notorious extermination centres in the world, where in excess of 16,000 prisoners were brutally tortured, then executed. He is currently being detained awaiting trial on crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity. In any sense, a criminal who was accused of the same crimes that he will be called to testify against would not be a credible witness. He is being detained and guarded by the Cambodian police, and therefore he is at the mercy of the Cambodian authority and so would say anything to get a good deal for his upcoming sentence. As such, in an independent judiciary, his testimony would be tainted and inadmissible as evidences.
It is rather interesting for another witness, Long Visalo, to re-emerge at this critical time of truth-searching for the Khmer rouge crimes. He will not be a credible witness either because he was part of the crimes that he is called to defend. One does not need to look any further than Visalo’s own admission to prove that he was the perpetrator of the Khmer Rouge brutalities, and not the victim of those crimes. With such admission as “I was assigned to prepare a re-education camp in Boeng Trabek” proved that Long Visalo was not a prisoner of Boeng Trabek, but in fact an administrator of this re-education centre. To re-phrase Visalo's own words, he was the one who set up the Boeng Trabek Prison. Visalo went on to say that “I undertook several political sessions with Angkar’s leading cadre when I lived in Phnom Penh between 1976-1979”. These admissions proved that he was a leading Khmer Rouge cadre, who was actively participating in the Khmer Rouge day-to-day’s affairs such as administering the Boeng Trabek Prison and training and indoctrinating Khmer Rouge cadres.
It must be noted that only leading Khmer Rouge cadres were ever allowed to take part in a political sessions with ‘Angkar’s leading cadre” because the Khmer Rouge regime was a very secretive organisation. No one from outside, let a lone a prisoner like Long Visalo, would be allowed to take part in those very secretive political sessions.
Long Visalo’s shady pasts have been revealed by many Western historians and experts of the Khmer Rouge regime. In many books written by experts of the Khmer Rouge regime, it was claimed that, during the Khmer Rouge regime, Long Visalo worked at the Foreign Ministry and held a position equivalent to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs. He worked along side Ieng Sary and was very close to him. As an official of the Foreign Ministry, Visalo’s day-to-day job was to train Khmer Rouge cadres in foreign affairs and international relations at either the Institut Technique Khmer-Sovietique or at the former University of Phnom Penh.
Long Visalo’s claims of being a prisoner was incorrect. He was certainly not the victim of the Khmer Rouge, but an accomplish to the Khmer Rouge crimes at best, and a perpetrator and an architect of the Khmer Rouge crimes at worst.
So, are Duch and Long Visalo credible witnesses in the Hor Namhong’s defamation case against Sam Rainsy? The answer is a resounding “no“!
No comments:
Post a Comment