01005700 Case File No. 002/19-09-2007/ECCC/TC E313 only at the end of the hearing.155 Further, KHIEU Samphan and NUON Chea argue that the time and facilities provided for closing submissions were insufficient considering the thousands of documents admitted in Case 002/01 (particularly those admitted late in the trial), the appearance of 92 individuals, the complexity of the case and discrepancies in translations.156 64. A court may provide the opportunity for adversarial debate in various ways, but “whatever method is chosen, it should ensure that the other party will be aware that observations have been filed and will get a real opportunity to comment thereon”.157 For the reasons that follow, the Chamber decides that the parties have had the opportunity for adversarial debate. 2.4.9.1. 65. Initial Lists of Evidence (Internal Rule 80(3)) Following a judicial investigation lasting more than three years during which the Accused had access to the Case File including the inculpatory and exculpatory information collected, the Chamber ordered the parties to file lists of proposed evidence by 13 April 2011 pursuant to Internal Rule 80(3).158 Following the severance of Case 002 and again after the extension of the trial to include executions of former 155 Urgent Request for Clarification of the Trial Chamber Decision of 15 August 2013 concerning Objections to the Admissibility of Written Statements and Deferral of the Timeline for Filing Final Briefs, E299/1, 2 September 2013, paras 37-43; Urgent Request by the Defence Team of Mr. KHIEU Samphan for an Immediate Stay or Proceedings, E275/2/1/1, 1 August 2013, paras 67, 78-91, 97-98; T. 9 July 2013, pp. 44-46, 70-85 (arguing, inter alia, that there is uncertainty regarding the totality of evidence to be admitted and therefore, until these uncertainties are resolved, the Defence cannot make submissions on probative value); Submissions by Mr. KHIEU Samphan’s Defence regarding the Questioning of the Accused, E288/4, 5 July 2013, paras 31-32; T. 13 June 2013, pp. 10-19; Mr. KHIEU Samphan’s Motion Reasserting His Right to a Fair and Adversarial Criminal Trial, E263, 11 February 2013, paras 4, 35-36, 39-40, 46, 55; T. 19 October 2012, pp. 9, 62-64, 69-70; Motion in Response to the Numerous Difficulties Raised by Ms. LAMB’s E-Mail dated 2 February 2012, E167, 3 February 2012, paras 10, 13, 14, 22. 156 Submissions by Mr. KHIEU Samphan’s Defence regarding the Questioning of the Accused, E288/4, 5 July 2013, paras 33-34; Mr. KHIEU Samphan’s Motion Reasserting His Right to a Fair and Adversarial Criminal Trial, E263, 11 February 2013, paras 41, 48, 51-53; T. 13 June 2013, pp. 9-10, 39-43 (KHIEU Samphan requested a 300-page briefs); T. 9 July 2013, pp. 47, 74; Observations concerning Trial Chamber’s Request to Receive Final Legal Submissions by 21 December 2012, E163/5/5, 26 November 2012, paras 3-9, 13, 23-24, 26 (NUON Chea requested a 180-page brief); Urgent Request by the Defence Team of Mr. KHIEU Samphan for an Immediate Stay or Proceedings, E275/2/1/1, 1 August 2013, paras 73-74, 77; See also, T. 25 October 2013 (KHIEU Samphan Defence Closing Statement), pp. 32-33. 157 Öcalan v. Turkey, ECtHR (Application No. 46221/99), Judgement, 12 May 2005, para.146 citing Brandstetter v. Austria, ECtHR (Application No. 11170/84, 12876/87 and 13468/87), Judgement, 28 August 1991, para. 67; See also, Kayishema and Ruzindana Appeal Judgement, para. 80. 158 Order to File Material in Preparation for Trial, E9, 17 January 2011. Case 002/01, Judgement, 7 August 2014 - Public 33