Report 30 – Testimony of the plaintiffs Gatdiet Peter & Gawar Mud Wat
This week it was time for two new plaintiffs to enter Courtroom 34 and share their testimonies. The week had dramatic elements – one of the lay judges suddenly had to go to the emergency room, which resulted in a schedule change. It appeared both parties struggled with eliciting details from the plaintiffs, such as specific time periods when events allegedly took place and the number of victims killed during the attacks. The defense concluded the last day of the hearing by saying that the prosecution “was out bicycling” – a Swedish expression meaning that they did know what they were talking about.
Hearing with plaintiff Gatdiet Peter
On the 28th of August it was time for the tenth plaintiff Gatdiet Peter to be heard in Stockholm District Court. Before giving the floor to the prosecution, Judge Tomas Zander emphasized the importance of Gatdiet distinguishing his personal experiences from secondary sources.
The prosecution, led by prosecutor Annika Wennerström, started their questioning by asking the plaintiff to describe his background. Gatdiet recounted that he was born in 1986 in Leer and grew up in Leek. This immediately caused confusion, which led one of the interpreters to clarify that Leer and Leek are not to be confused. Gatdiet continued explaining that his family belongs to the Nuer tribe. In 1993, the family moved to Guei, a village situated near the Nhialdiu area. When asked to describe the area, Gatdiet stated that the village had a school where he learnt to read and write, adding that he is highly educated with a master’s degree. Moreover, Guei also had a church where he and his family practiced their Christian religion.
Due to his father’s death in 1989, Gatdiet and his five siblings grew up with his uncle. One of Gatdiet’s brothers eventually joined the rebel group SPLA (Sudan People’s Liberation Army). The prosecution continued, asking if he knew who the local Paramount Chief was, upon which he replied Tungwar. This was in accordance with the statements made by plaintiff Steven Tungwar from the previous week. Seemingly, the purpose of these questions was to strengthen the plaintiff’s credibility.
The prosecution asked Gatdiet to explain how the peace eventually came to an end. In September 1997, a violent conflict broke loose between the rebel groups led by Paulino Matiep and Biel Chuol. Due to the escalating violence mainly caused by shooting, Gatdiet and his family were forced to flee to a nearby village. After approximately two weeks, the family decided to return to Guei where the conflict was ongoing. When asked to describe the violence, Gatdiet stated the ground troops mainly used machine guns, such as Kalashnikovs.
The attack on Bentiu
Gatdiet carried on testifying, explaining that his family fled to Bentiu during the summer of 1998 to secure their settlement. After one month’s stay, the conflict had reached Bentiu. In the years of 1998-1999, the rebel groups suddenly left the area, whereby the conflict temporarily ceased. In the beginning of 2000, the troops returned, heavily armed with Antonov aircrafts and helicopter gunships. The ground troops entered the area by boat.
The Antonov planes had a noticeable sound that the local inhabitants clearly recognized and that spurred them to instantly seek protection in the forest or the nearby village Khartoum. The Antonovs systematically attacked civilians for two months. When the prosecution asked how the attacks unfolded, the plaintiff described Antonovs dropping bombs that detonated upon impact, causing giant holes in the ground. The prosecution focused on whether Gatdiet had seen these holes or only heard of them, and he confirmed that he had seen many holes as well as the actual bombs. A bomb had even landed in his uncle’s backyard, although it had not detonated, so Gatdiet and his brothers had it removed.
Moreover, Gatdiet did not recall seeing if civilians were injured or killed during the attacks. His response appeared to be rooted in a reluctance to be perceived as unreliable, possibly in light of the many reminders from the prosecution and Judge Zander to only discuss things he had personally witnessed. Life in Guei was difficult during the following spring, (highlighting Sudanese spring is from October until December) since the bombing made harvesting impossible. Until this point, Gatdiet had been relatively free in his story telling. Due to the plaintiff’s increasingly short answers, the prosecution suddenly faced slight resistance to their questioning.
Aerial bombardment in Leer
Prosecutor Annika Wennerström asked for clarification regarding which rebel groups were present in the area during the aerial bombardment and what they were like, to which Gatdiet replied he was unsure. The prosecution then carried on asking about helicopter gunships. Gatdiet stated that between 1999 and the beginning of 2000, the gunships were present in Leer. The helicopters approached civilians very closely and targeted them before shooting.
Gatdiet recalled wearing red pants during this time, something he regretted since the red colour was easy to detect in the grass where he hid. The gunships on the other hand were thoroughly camouflaged. According to Gatdiet, the purpose of the attack was to depopulate the area. Due to the atrocities in Leer, Gatdiet was forced to flee to Bentiu in the end of 2000. After staying in Bentiu for a few months, Gatdiet started his nine day long walk back to Leer, leaving his cattle and settlement behind.
The prosecution now switched focus to the roads, asking if Gatdiet noticed any road construction. Gatdiet responded that he was unsure, whereby the prosecution appeared slightly troubled, repeating the question while articulating clearly. When asked a second time, Gatdiet said that he had heard about road construction by the oil company Chevron, although he had not personally seen it. Here, the prosecution referred to a deviating statement that he had made during the police investigation in 2015, referring to an extract where Gatdiet had stated that he was asked to work with road construction in Bentiu.
According to his investigation responses, Gatdiet had said he was taken to the company base situated near a road called Kilo 30. The prosecutor asked Gatdiet if he recalled giving this information. Gatdiet confirmed, adding that “the Arabs” had asked him to do road construction. Gatdiet continued explaining that the road led to Leer, although he was not aware of which company was responsible for the work.
The floor was given to the plaintiff’s counsel, who asked Gatdiet to further explain what happened during the incident when a bomb landed in his uncle’s backyard. Gatdiet explained that the bomb was dropped approximately 200-300 meters from the yard. The plaintiff’s counsel further asked about the number of cattle left behind during Gatdiet’s walk to Leer. Gatdiet stated that they usually do not count children or cattle, although he thought it was approximately 30-50 cows.
After the lunch break, Judge Zander informed everyone that one of the lay judges unfortunately had gone to the emergency room due to a medical condition. As a result, the hearing could not continue until the next day. Fortunately, the judge returned as scheduled.
Cross examination by Ian Lundin’s defense
On the second day of the hearing, Ian Lundin’s defense was given the floor. The defense led by Thomas Tendorf asked if Gatdiet recalls what he had stated during the police investigation regarding the purpose of the gunship attack. Judge Zander suddenly broke in, telling the defense to ask questions regarding what Gatdiet knew now, rather than asking questions regarding the statements he made during the investigation. The defense nodded while rephrasing the question. As he had previously mentioned, Gatdiet replied that he did not know the purpose of the attack. This statement was in accordance with the statements made in the investigation, where it also appeared that Gatdiet did not know whether the goal was to kill civilians or soldiers.
The defense continued asking what soldiers were present in Guei, to which Gatdiet answered that SSIM soldiers (South Sudan Independence Movement) and soldiers led by rebel leader Paulino Matiep were present before 1997. Moreover, the prosecution had earlier asked if there was a war ongoing in Guei before 1997, to which Gatdiet had replied no. Tendorf asked Gatdiet to clarify if he meant war or conflict, whereby Gatdiet confirmed there was no war. The defense then pointed out another inconsistency, presenting extracts from the investigation where Gatdiet had stated the opposite. Gatdiet clarified that he had referred to youths fighting about cattle. When the government entered the area, the fighting ceased.
The questioning now switched focus to oil exploration, which the defense until this point seemingly had avoided. The defense continued highlighting discrepancies in the plaintiff’s responses, pointing out that Gatdiet had previously claimed that the presence of the oil companies was positive as it improved the country’s financial situation. Judge Zander did not permit this line of questioning, noting that Gatdiet had given consistent answers during the hearing. Judge Zander stressed that Gatdiet earlier had clarified that the positive outcome from the presence of the oil industry did not include the killing of civilians. Judge Zander once again asked the defense to ask their questions directly to the plaintiff and not refer repeatedly to the former investigation, this time with a slightly irritated voice. Ian Lundin’s defense ended their cross-examination by asking if Gatdiet had heard of Lundin Oil being present in the area during the relevant time, to which he replied no.
Cross examination by Alexandre Schneiter’s defense
Alexandre Schneiter’s counsel Johan Reiner started their cross-examination by asking if Gatdiet knew Egbert Wesserlink from the peace organization PAX. Gatdiet explained that they had met two times during 2016 in the Netherlands where Gatdiet currently lives. Reiner further asked if Gatdiet was aware of how he became a plaintiff in this case. Gatdiet replied he was contacted by the ICC (International Criminal Court). The defense’s questioning seemed to imply that the plaintiff had been illegally influenced by Wesserlink.
Furthermore, the defense asked if Gatdiet had had to hide from the gunships and not just from the Antonovs. The counsel invoked a discrepancy from the police investigation, wherein Gatdiet had stated that the gunships never reached the area where he was staying. Gatdiet explained they were staying in an area near where the attacks took place and that they therefore hid from the aerial bombardment carried out by the Antonovs and gunships. Judge Zander lastly gave the floor to the prosecution for their redirect. The prosecution ended the hearing by asking if there were any ground troops present when the bombings occurred, to which Gatdiet replied that the ground troops had left the area by that time.
Hearing with plaintiff Gawar Mud Wat
Followed by a short break, it was time for the plaintiff Gawar Mud Wat to take his seat in the courtroom. After welcoming Gawar to the court, Judge Zander gave the floor to the plaintiff’s counsel, Percy Bratt, who presented a short introduction of Gawar. Gawar was born in 1988 in the village of Koch, situated in Rubkona County. Gawar’s family originates from the Nuer tribe. His father was a spiritual and religious leader who had four wives and many children.
The floor was then given to the prosecution, led by Martina Winslow, who initiated the questioning by encouraging the plaintiff to clearly distinguish his personal experiences from what he had heard from secondary sources. In response to the the prosecution’s request, Gawar described Koch as a small village, explaining that his father was highly respected among the inhabitants due to his high-status position. The family lived in peace with their settlement and cattle, and the most common cause of death was illness. Gawar suddenly fell silent for a moment, asking the court to wait while he composed himself. After a minute, Gawar carried on with his testimony, stating that the peace ended in 1997.
Gawar’s family was told that the peace was over by the elderly in the village. Despite this information, the family stayed in the area hoping for the best. After some time, what Gawar referred to as “the war” had reached Koch. Soldiers destroyed settlements and cattle. Gawar witnessed people being killed and, later, dead bodies being buried. When speaking of his father encouraging him to flee from the area, Gawar became emotional, once again pausing his storytelling.
After a few seconds of silence, Gawar continued testifying. He was forced to leave the area due to the violence, walking through the nearby village Nyony and continuing to Leer. When he arrived in Leer, Gawar met other civilians heading in the same direction. Many were shot by ground troops – the wounded were left behind as people fled through the forest for their lives. Unsure of where to go, Gawar decided to return to his family, who had fled to Bentiu.
The attack in Bentiu
During his journey, Gawar noticed a new road and cars collecting material for road construction. Gawar referred to those driving the cars as “Arabs.” Gawar explained that the soldiers from the Sudanese government plundered the settlement and took the civilians’ cattle in Bentiu. Without cows, the main form of currency, the inhabitants were forced to seek necessities from the United Nations aid mission. Together with other children, Gawar was arrested and later recruited as a child soldier in Nhialdiu by soldiers from the Sudanese government. When in Nhialdiu, Gawar witnessed civilians being brutally killed during bombardments, stressing that this was carried out by the Sudanese government. Gawar stated he saw someone’s arms and legs being blown off during a bombing. Gawar dug bunkers in the ground to protect himself from the bombardment.
After Gawar’s vivid and free-flowing testimony, the prosecution asked for further details regarding the regime-led militias responsible for the attack in Bentiu. Gawar admitted that he was uncertain as to what groups the soldiers belonged to as some wore military uniforms while others wore civilian clothing. The prosecution also asked Gawar to specify the distances between the villages he fled to and during what time of the year he fled. Gawar explained that he stayed in Nyony until the middle of 1999. He was unsure about the distances, adding that he remembered that his only food at that time was corn. Suddenly, prosecutor Martina Winslow suggested an early lunch. Judge Zander asked the reason for this, to which she replied that it was for the interpreters’ sake. Judge Zander replied, “How considerate of you to think about the interpreters,” with a slightly ironic undertone.
The prosecution continued their questioning after lunch, asking about which group had recruited Gawar to be a child soldier. Gawar was unsure, although he did not believe that the group had been allied with the Sudanese government. The questioning then switched focus to the bombardments he had described. Gawar explained that the bombings carried out by Antonovs happened in 2002, which he witnessed while he was at a market in Nhialdiu. Many civilians were victims of the atrocities. The attacks were carried out morning, noon, and afternoon – three times per day. According to Gawar, the Sudanese government was responsible for the attack. The prosecution concluded their questioning, asking Gawar if someone had induced him to give false information during the hearing. Gawar replied simply – no.
Cross-examination by Alexandre Schneiter’s defense
The floor was given to Alexandre Schneiter’s defense, led by Olle Kullinger. Similar to the defense’s questioning of the previous plaintiff, Kullinger initially asked how Gawar got in contact with the Swedish police. Allegedly, there was information pointing out that Gawar was connected to the police by Egbert Wesselink and journalist Petter Bolme. Gawar answered that he met Petter Bolme after he was contacted by the Swedish police. Kullinger continued, stating that in 1997 Gawar was nine years old, followed by the question “Much of this information you have shared today is from elderly people, correct?” After some consideration, Gawar answered in a slightly severe tone: “There is a difference between what I have seen and what I have been told from others.” The prosecution nodded, seemingly satisfied with Gawar’s answer.
The defense invoked a deviation since Gawar allegedly had claimed that no civilians were injured during the attack in 1999 in Leer. Kullinger presented an extract from the earlier investigation where the plaintiff stated that no one was killed from the shooting. Gawar replied that since the statements he had made today were truthful, there must have been a misunderstanding during the investigation. Kullinger continued focusing on the investigation, claiming that Gawar had stated that rebel leader Peter Gadet was responsible for the attack in Bentiu. Gawar clarified that he was given this information by his father.
The prosecution suddenly seemed confused, asking exactly what pages Kullinger was referring to. Kullinger replied with the page reference, but the prosecution could not find the quote in question. It became clear that the prosecution and the defense had different versions of the investigation materials as a result of the defense having had the investigation translated a second time. Kullinger turned to the prosecution, saying “If you have not based your questioning on the newly translated version of the preliminary investigation, you are out bicycling.” Winslow replied “Sorry, what did you say? Out bicycling?” to which Kullinger replied “Yes”. The atmosphere in the courtroom was clearly tense. Since Ian Lundin’s counsel did not have any questions, the hearing concluded with this minor conflict.
Next report
Our next report will cover the testimony of the seventeenth and the eighteenth plaintiffs, Stephen Gatlueng Kouh and Andrew Noan.
