01005792 Case File No. 002/19-09-2007/ECCC/TC E313 used the term differently.702 A reference to ‘Angkar’ in a document was sometimes a reference to a specific senior member of the CPK, such as SON Sen or POL Pot.703 Witness SAUT Toeung testified that, in his understanding, ‘Angkar’ meant POL Pot and NUON Chea.704 The frequency with which individuals and “bad elements” held themselves out to be ‘Angkar’ prompted Committee 870 to issue a directive in 1977 in the following terms: 1. The term “Angkar” or “Party” is used only for the organization. It shall not be used for any individual. 2. For individual (sic): “comrade”, “this person’s name”, or “comrade in this or that position”, or “comrade representing Angkar at this or that level” shall be used.705 222. However, it is not clear to what extent the directive was circulated amongst ordinary people. Although Witness PECH Chim, a former District secretary, recalled teaching people “not to refer to any particular individual as Angkar”, it was uncertain whether this was a result of the directive or not; and it is obvious that many of those interviewed by the OCIJ never fully grasped the meaning of ‘Angkar’, either before or after 1977.706 5.1.9. Democratic Centralism 223. Broadly speaking, the CPK was organised in accordance with the principle of ‘democratic centralism’. As set out in the CPK Statute, this concept had two dimensions. First, decisions would be made democratically, that is collectively rather than individually.707 Structurally, this was reflected in the ubiquity of committees 702 T. 29 March 2012 (KAING Guek Eav), pp. 14-15. T. 27 March 2012 (KAING Guek Eav), p. 35; T. 28 March 2012 (KAING Guek Eav), p. 73. 704 T. 19 April 2012 (SAUT Toeung), p. 73. 705 Committee 870 Directive, E3/740, 24 July 1977. 706 T. 1 July 2013 (PECH Chim), p. 85. See e.g. PEN Loeut Interview Record, E3/5226, 18 November 2008, p. 3, ERN (En) 00250278 (“I didn’t know who Angkar was”); MIECH Ponn Interview Record, E3/5523, 9 December 2009, p. 3, ERN (En) 00434651 (“At that time, I did not know who the Angkar or Central Committee was”); DUCH Phleu Interview Record, E3/5213, 28 August 2008, p. 3, ERN (En) 00275433 (“I did not know who Angkar was”); Interview with CHUM Manh by Co-Prosecutors, E3/5690, 17 August 2006, p. 2, ERN (En) 00146775 (“At first time I don’t know what Angkar is”); SUONG Sim Interview Record, E3/4657, 9 July 2009, p. 8, ERN (En) 00353705 (“I did not know at that time who Angkar was”); PECH Sokha Interview Record, E3/403, 12 October 2009, p. 4, ERN (En) 00403004 (discussing the period after 1977, and stating: “I did not know who Angkar was. I just heard Angkar.”); KEANG Vannary Interview Record, E3/5310, 7 July 2009, p. 10, ERN (En) 00353490 (“Q. What do you mean by Angkar? A. I do not know; I heard others say Angkar, so I said Angkar.”). 707 CPK Statute, E3/130, undated, p. 16, Article 6, ERN (En) 00184037. 703 Case 002/01, Judgement, 7 August 2014 - Public 125