SOU Sotheavy
Pseudonym: TCCP-151 - 2-TCCP-224
Cases: Case 002/01, Case 002/02
Category: Civil Party
Background and roles
Sou Sotheavy was born in 1940 in Takeo province, which was located in the Southwest Zone under the Khmer Rouge regime.
1
She identified as a transgender woman and started dressing as a woman since she was 10 years old.
2
She was considered to be a 17 April person and was forced to marry a woman in August 1977 in Bati district.
3
They had a child during the regime and were separated since 1979.
4
She testified as a Civil Party before the Case 002/02 Trial Chamber on the forced marriage under the regime.
Forced marriage
Under the regime, speaking to someone from the opposite sex – even though they were in the same unit – was considered a moral offence.
5
Sou Sotheavy’s unit chief told her to get married since February 1977, while she was sent to break the rock at Tum Pek mountain.
6
Because of her nature and the fact that she never loved women, she kept refusing to marry a woman.
7
She was not informed of the wedding day.
8
Rather, she was called from the worksite by the unit chief at 3 p.m., and the wedding ceremony began at 6 p.m. on that day.
9
The wedding was not held according to the Khmer tradition,
10
without any sermon preached by monks or wedding procession.
11
The marriage was similar to “playing hide-and-seek”.
12
Men and women in each group were organised in separate lines.
13
117 couples stood in lines.
14
After the sun set, they switched off the lights and individuals were instructed to touch each other to find their future spouses.
15
New people were to get married with new people, and old people were to marry old people.
16
No one dared to refuse to the arrangement,
17
or to talk for fear of being disappeared.
18
District, commune, and unit chiefs attended Sou Sotheavy’s wedding ceremony,
19
and made speeches.
20
The unit chief announced that male and female youths were required to get married in order to increase the population.
21
The couples made a resolution to loving each other, and to producing children for Angkar.
22
On the wedding night, Sou Sotheavy saw movements of shadows under her house through the floor made of bamboo.
23
The next morning she saw marks of people crawling under the house whom she thought were young militia men checking whether they consummated the marriage.
24
She did not have sexual intercourse with her wife for several weeks after the wedding.
25
They were then called separately by the village chief and warned that they would be smashed if it was discovered that they had not consummated their marriage.
26
After drinking wine provided by the chief, she and her wife decided to consummate the marriage.
27
Even though she did not love woman, she had to have sexual intercourse with her wife because for fear of death.
28
Following the marriage, the newlyweds were allowed to meet every 10 days.
29
People did not have the right to get divorced.
30
Those who attempted to split up were taken away for re-education.
31
Sou Sotheavy saw disabled soldiers who were sent back from the battlefield married to women from the base people, who were considered to be loyal to the Party.
32
That was different from the 17 April people’s wedding because “it was not forced”:
33
she did not hear words of threat or intimidation during the wedding and none of the women to be married dared to refuse.
34
The Trial Chamber cited her testimony in finding that: (i) one of the purposes of the regulation of marriage was to facilitate the increase of population;
35
(ii) marriages between disabled soldiers and women from the base people were implemented according to a policy promoted by the Communist Party of Kampuchea’s (CPK) highest levels;
36
(iii) people with similar backgrounds were matched to marry;
37
(iv) in rare instances, the number of couples married in a single wedding ceremony could reach hundreds of couples;
38
(v) in general, parents were not involved in the arrangement of weddings;
39
(vi) genuine consent to consummation of a marriage was not possible where couples had not consented to enter into marriage in the first place, knew that consummation was required, compliance was monitored, and in case of noncompliance, forced;
40
(vii) after marriage, couples’ relationships were still commonly controlled by the CPK;
41
and (viii) the forced marriage have had a long-lasting impact on the victims and many of them were still haunted by this to this day.
42
However, while the Trial Chamber found that although a husband had to have sexual intercourse with his wife following Angkar’s instructions and out of fear for their lives, it was unable to reach a conclusion to the requisite standard that men was victim of sexual violence from the forced marriage.
43
The Supreme Court Chamber held that the Trial Chamber did not err in relying on Sou Sotheavy’s testimony in its findings on the regulation on marriage, considering that the Trial Chamber cited a number of other witnesses and Civil Parties, and did not rely solely on Sou Sotheavy’s evidence to support any general finding.
44
However, it found the Trial Chamber erred in failing to: (i) recognise Sou Sotheavy’s identity as a transgender woman as part of female victims of the policy of forced consummation of the marriage;
45
and (ii) address this grave suffering in its findings on serious mental or physical suffering or injury caused to women.
46
Statement of suffering
“I lost everything. I lost the warmth of the family and there is nothing else important than that. I had wept for a long time until my tear dried up. And what happened under the regime of 3 years 8 months and 20 days period, I cannot forget about it. Everybody knows what happened during the regime, but for me I suffered the most. I was looked down upon. I was forced to get married. I was sexually abused due to my transgender nature. I have had memory lost issue. I had physical injury. And this is just what I remembered and still more that I might have lost count of what happened. I have poor eyesight due to the injury and also my right leg is handicapped from the chains that I was put on during my imprisonment. Nothing can ever compensate for all the suffering I have had endured. I want to express this suffering and harms so that people understand that I suffered. I suffered from those acts. And I know my day is coming soon since I'm now 78 years old. There is nothing else for me during this life. Maybe this is the karma that I received from what I did in my previous condition or life.”
47
Videos
| Date | Written record of proceedings | Transcript number |
|---|---|---|
| 27/05/2013 | E1/197 | E1/197.1 |
| 23/August/2016 | E1/462 | E1/462.1 |
| 24/August/2016 | E1/463 | E1/463.1 |
| Document title Khmer | Document title English | Document title French | Document D number | Document E3 number |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ពាក្យសុំតាំងខ្លួនជាដើមបណ្តឹង រដ្ឋប្បវេណីរបស់ ស៊ូ សុទ្ធាវី | Civil Party Application of Mr. SOU Sotheavy | Constitution en partie civile de M. Sou Sotheavy | D22/31 | E3/4607 |
| ពាក្យសុំតាំងខ្លួនជាដើមបណ្តឹង រដ្ឋប្បវេណីរបស់ ស៊ូ សុទ្ធាវី | Civil Party Application of Mr. Sou Sotheavy | Procès-verbal de l’audition de la partie civile SOU Sotheavy ស៊ូ សុធាវី du 13-10-2009 | D22/31 | E3/5729 |
| កំណត់ហេតុនៃការស្តាប់ចម្លើយ ដើមបណ្តឹងរដ្ឋប្បវេណី ស៊ូ សុទ្ធាវី | Written Record of Interview of Civil Party Sou Sotheavy | Procès-verbal de l’audition de la partie civile SOU Sotheavy ស៊ូ សុធាវី du 18-12-2009 | D277/11 | E3/4609 |