01005689 Case File No. 002/19-09-2007/ECCC/TC E313 2.4.2. Alleged Defects in the Judicial Investigation 42. Repeating arguments and submissions made previously over the course of the proceedings in Case 002/01, in their Closing Statements, the Accused submit that the judicial investigation was so impaired by procedural defects and tainted by political interference that the Trial Chamber could not rely on it without infringing the right of the Accused to a fair trial.110 The Chamber has already ruled that, during the pre-trial stage, the Accused had made extensive use of the procedural safeguards existing in the ECCC legal framework to address alleged defects in the investigation either before the Co-Investigating Judges or on appeal to the Pre-Trial Chamber. The Accused have also failed to satisfy the Trial Chamber that alleged procedural defects or allegations of government interference had a tangible impact on Case 002/01.111 Appeals against these decisions were dismissed by the Supreme Court Chamber.112 110 NUON Chea’s Closing Submissions in Case 002/01, E295/6/3, paras 16-26 (alleging unfairness arising from selective prosecution and the allegation that the ECCC represents the “basest form of victor’s justice”), 27-37 (systematic flaws in the conduct of the judicial investigation), 45-46 (failure of the Co-Investigating Judges to summons key witnesses), 51 (failure of the Co-Investigating Judges to explore the historical context of the crimes), 71 (failure of the Co-Investigating Judges to explore the chain of custody and origins of evidence), 73-77 (the investigatory practices during the judicial investigation were flawed), 80-81 (the Co-Investigating Judges were biased and subject to government interference); T. 22 October 2013 (NUON Chea Defence Closing Statement), pp. 6-8, 28-37, 45-47, 49-51, 55-60; T. 31 October 2013 (NUON Chea Defence Rebuttal), p. 44; T. 31 October 2013 (KHIEU Samphan Defence Rebuttal), pp. 63-64. 111 See e.g. Decision on IENG Sary’s Motion for a Hearing on the Conduct of the Judicial Investigations, E71/1, 8 April 2011 (The Chamber dismissed the Defence motion finding that no specific matter or alleged procedural defect was raised and that no specific relief was requested. The Chamber referred to Internal Rule 76(7) which states “Subject to any appeal, the Closing Order shall cure any procedural defects in the judicial investigation. No issues concerning such procedural defects may be raised before the Trial Chamber or the Supreme Court Chamber”); Decision on NUON Chea Motions regarding Fairness of Judicial Investigation (E51/3, E82, E88 and E92), E116, 9 September 2011; Decision on NUON Chea’s Request for a Rule 35 Investigation regarding Inconsistencies in the Audio and Written Records of OCIJ Witness Interviews, E142/3, 13 March 2012 (discrepancies between audio and written records are a matter which is relevant to the final assessment of evidence); Decision on Defence Requests Concerning Irregularities Alleged to Have Occurred During the Judicial Investigation (E221, E223, E224, E224/2, E234, E234/2, E241 and E241/1), E251, 7 December 2012; Decision on Rule 35 Applications for Summary Action, E176/2, 11 May 2012; Decision on Application for Immediate Action Pursuant to Rule 35, E189/3, 22 November 2012. NUON Chea argues that the Chamber’s decisions concerning political interference were “systematically weak and evasive” (NUON Chea’s Closing Submissions in Case 002/01, E295/6/3, 26 September 2013, para. 89). Beyond this general assertion, he fails to either identify those decisions he believes to be deficient or substantiate this argument. The Chamber is therefore unable to assess this submission and summarily dismisses it. 112 Decision on Immediate Appeal by NUON Chea against the Trial Chamber’s Decision on Fairness of the Investigation (SCC), E116/1/7, 27 April 2012; Decision on NUON Chea’s “Immediate Appeal against Trial Chamber Decision on Application for Immediate Action pursuant to Rule 35” (SCC), E189/3/1/8, 25 March 2013; Decision on NUON Chea’s Appeal against the Trial Chamber’s Decision on Rule 35 Applications for Summary Action (SCC), E176/2/1/4, 14 September 2012. Case 002/01, Judgement, 7 August 2014 - Public 22