01005701 Case File No. 002/19-09-2007/ECCC/TC E313 Khmer Republic officials at Tuol Po Chrey, the Chamber directed the parties to file revised lists of evidence relevant to the factual allegations falling within the scope of Case 002/01.159 On an on-going basis, the Chamber admitted that evidence which was relevant to various topic segments and witnesses. Where the Co-Prosecutors or Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyers failed to exercise reasonable diligence in presenting evidence, thereby impeding the opportunity for adversarial challenge, the Chamber excluded that evidence.160 In the absence of demonstrated prejudice, an accused is expected to rely on the initial lists of evidence provided by the other parties in preparing and presenting his case.161 2.4.9.2. 66. Admissibility Hearings The Chamber provided the parties the opportunity to object to the admissibility of evidence in oral and written submissions throughout the proceedings,162 inviting and entertaining submissions from the parties as to the time and facilities required to adequately make such objections.163 Even though objections that go beyond the prima facie relevance and reliability of proposed evidence do not impact upon their 159 Severance Order Pursuant to Internal Rule 89ter, E124, 22 September 2011; Notification of Decision on Co-Prosecutors’ Request to Include Additional Crime Sites within the Scope of the Trial in Case 002/01 (E163) and Deadline for Submission of Applicable Law Portion of Closing Briefs (TC), E163/5, 8 October 2012. 160 See e.g. Decision on Objections to the Admissibility of Witness, Victim and Civil Party Statements and Case 001 Transcripts Proposed by the Co-Prosecutors and Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyers, E299, 15 August 2013, paras 40-42; Response to Internal Rule 87(4) Requests of the Co-Prosecutors, NUON Chea and KHIEU Samphan (E236/4/1, E265, E271, E276, E276/1) (TC), E276/2, 10 April 2013, para. 4; Decision on Internal Rule 87(4) Request of the Co-Prosecutors to Put before the Chamber Document D366/7.1.366 (TC), E298, 14 August 2013. 161 Kanyarukiga Appeal Judgement, paras 52-53 (an accused’s “general claim that he had to address immaterial information [due to decisions on the admissibility of evidence issued at the end of the trial] is insufficient to show that he suffered prejudice and that the fairness of the proceedings was undermined”). 162 In addition to the opportunity to file written objections, the parties were also provided the opportunity to make oral submissions concerning the admissibility of evidence during hearings totaling 14 days (16-19 January 2012, 16 February 2012, 12-15 March 2012 and 21-24 January 2013). 163 Scheduling of Oral Hearing on Documents (16-19 January 2012) (TC), E159, 11 January 2012; Scheduling of Oral Hearing on Documents (13-16 February 2012) (TC), E170, 9 February 2012, paras 6-7; Further Oral Hearing on Documents (commencing 12 March 2012) (TC), E172/1, 24 February 2012; Updated Memorandum for next document hearing (12-19 March 2012) (TC), E172/5, 2 March 2012, para. 2; Forthcoming Document Hearings and Response to Lead Co-Lawyers’ Memorandum Concerning the Trial Chamber’s Request to Identify Civil Party Applications for Use at Trial (E208/4) and KHIEU Samphan Defence Request to Revise Corroborative Evidence Lists (E223) (TC), E223/2, 19 October 2012; Revised Schedule for Forthcoming Document Hearing (Commencing Monday 21 January 2013) (TC), E223/3, 17 January 2013; Third Decision on Objections to Documents Proposed for Admission Before the Trial Chamber, E185/2, 12 August 2013, paras 4-12 (setting out the procedural history of admissibility hearings before the Chamber). Case 002/01, Judgement, 7 August 2014 - Public 34