01005777 Case File No. 002/19-09-2007/ECCC/TC E313 5. ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURES 5.1. Structure of the CPK 199. The precise operational structure of the CPK was shrouded in secrecy. 591 In the early days of the Party, secrecy was essential to its survival as an underground revolutionary movement.592 Even after the CPK rose to power in 1975, however, it continued to obfuscate and obscure its internal workings, largely to protect itself from perceived external enemies.593 Limited, if any, information about the leadership structure was accessible to ordinary people, who were often simply required to obey without question decisions made by ‘Angkar’ (literally ‘organisation’), an anonymous entity seen as having the power to control the whole of society. 594 Lower-ranking cadres sometimes had only a cursory understanding of the organisation of power in the CPK.595 This policy of secrecy undoubtedly accounted for some of the confusion and contradiction within the testimony of witnesses who appeared before the Trial Chamber.596 In its totality, however, the evidence put before the Chamber has enabled it to reconstruct the organisational lines of the CPK in the relevant period. 200. The administrative structure of the CPK was formalised for the first time in a statute passed by the First Party Congress of what was then called the Worker’s Party of Cambodia in September-October 1960.597 It is likely that a second statute was adopted at the Third Party Congress in or around August 1971.598 In any event, 591 NUON Chea Speech to the Communist Workers’ Party of Denmark, E3/196, July 1978, p. 27, ERN (En) 00762399; T. 30 May 2012 (NY Kan), p. 60; KHIEU Samphan Interview Record, E3/27, 13 December 2007, p. 7, ERN (En) 00156747; T. 14 August 2012 (SUONG Sikoeun), p. 92; T., 26 March 2012 (KAING Guek Eav), p. 39. 592 T. 6 May 2013 (Philip SHORT), pp. 85-86. 593 T. 6 May 2013 (Philip SHORT), pp. 88-89; T. 20 July 2012 (David CHANDLER), p. 95. 594 T. 6 December 2011 (KLAN Fit), p. 79; T. 20 July 2012 (David CHANDLER), pp. 97-98; DUCH Phleu Interview Record, E3/5213, 28 August 2008, p. 3, ERN (En) 00275433 (“Whatever Angkar had them do, they had to obey. I did not know who Angkar was”); TAN Wardeny Interview Record, E3/102, 11 June 2009, p. 3, ERN (En) 00345537 (“everyone used to say that it was ‘Angkar’ who decided, but we did not know who ‘Angkar’ was”). See also, Section 5: Administrative Structures, para. 221. 595 See e.g. T. 17 May 2012 (PEAN Khean), pp. 103-104; T. 28 May 2012 (NY Kan), p. 22; T. 6 August 2012 (SUONG Sikoeun), p. 65. 596 See e.g. Section 5: Administrative Structures, para. 207. 597 Revolutionary Flag, E3/10, September-October 1976, p. 6, ERN (En) 00450506; T. 21 March 2012 (KAING Guek Eav), p. 70; T. 6 December 2011 (NUON Chea), p. 25; Revolutionary Youth, E3/768, March 1977, p. 12, ERN (En) 00525948. See Section 3: Historical Background, para. 87. 598 T. 21 March 2012 (KAING Guek Eav), p. 70. See Section 3: Historical Background, para. 95. Case 002/01, Judgement, 7 August 2014 - Public 110