01005676 Case File No. 002/19-09-2007/ECCC/TC E313 foreseeable and accessible to the Accused.36 This principle does not prohibit a Chamber from interpreting and clarifying the law or from relying on those decisions that do so in other cases, even where those cases post-date the period under review. It does, however, prevent a Chamber “from creating new law or from interpreting existing law beyond the reasonable limits of acceptable clarification.”37 17. KHIEU Samphan and NUON Chea submit that the ECCC does not have jurisdiction to try international crimes because the ECCC is not an international tribunal where international law is directly applicable and crimes against humanity did not constitute criminal offences under national law at the time they were allegedly committed. They also claim that, in any case, international customary law did not, at the time of the offence, provide a detailed definition of the crimes and the applicable punishment as required by the principle of legality.38 The Chamber finds no merit in these submissions. 18. As a matter of principle, an accused is not relieved of criminal responsibility under international law merely because an international crime is not proscribed by national law.39 Where national law does not provide the specific characteristics of an international crime, a court may rely on international law without violating the principle of legality.40 It is clear that, in accordance with the Agreement, the Cambodian lawmakers intended to grant the ECCC jurisdiction over crimes against humanity as defined in international law and that such definition was considered 36 KAING Guek Eav Trial Judgement, paras 26-34; KAING Guek Eav Appeal Judgement, paras 8997; Cambodian Criminal Code, Article 3. 37 KAING Guek Eav Appeal Judgement, para. 95 citing Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, paras 126127. 38 Consolidated Preliminary Objections, E51/3, 25 February 2011, paras 43-48, 53; Preliminary Objections Concerning Jurisdiction, E46, 14 February 2011, paras 4-5, 19, 24; See also, Summary of IENG Sary’s Rule 89 Preliminary Objections & Notice of Intent of Noncompliance with Future Informal Memoranda Issued in Lieu of Reasoned Judicial Decisions subject to Appellate Review”, E51/4, 25 February 2011, para. 24(e) referring toIENG Sary’s Appeal against the Closing Order, D427/1/6, 25 October 2010, paras 106, 108, 125. 39 Nuremberg Principles, Principle II (“The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law”); Justice Judgement, p. 975 (“to apply the ex post facto principle to judicial decisions of common international law would have been to strangle that law at birth”). 40 Kononov v. Latvia, ECtHR (Application No. 36376/04), Judgement, 17 May 2010, para. 208; See also, KAING Guek Eav Appeal Judgement, fn. 188. Case 002/01, Judgement, 7 August 2014 - Public 9