01005697 Case File No. 002/19-09-2007/ECCC/TC E313 57. The first trial segment in Case 002/01 focused on the historical context of the crimes. During this segment and throughout the trial, the Chamber heard evidence concerning the American bombing campaign in Cambodia between 1969 and 1973, living conditions prior to 17 April 1975 and the post-1979 context from witnesses and experts, including seven proposed by NUON Chea. Various pieces of documentary evidence, proposed by all parties and relevant to the historical context (including the American bombing campaign in Cambodia between 1969 and 1973, living conditions prior to 17 April 1975 and the post-1979 context) were also admitted.144 58. The Chamber notes that it is bound by the facts contained in the Closing Order pursuant to Internal Rule 98(2), as severed in Case 002/01, and its obligation to ensure that trials are fair and expeditious. The Chamber therefore excluded some evidence of facts falling outside the scope of Case 002/01 or the Closing Order, including some relating to the historical context.145 NUON Chea, however, fails to demonstrate either that the evidence admitted concerning the historical context of the crimes was insufficient or how other evidence would have had a concrete impact on his guilt or innocence. Indeed, NUON Chea indicated that he chose not to fully explore the historical context and other matters outside the scope of Case 002/01, in part, as a matter of strategy, not inability.146 Accordingly, the Chamber finds that the rights of the Accused to present a defence were not violated. 2.4.8. Right to Examine Witnesses, Civil Parties and Experts 59. The Accused submit that their right to effectively examine witnesses, Civil Parties and experts and the principle of equality of arms were infringed by arbitrary and unfair limitations on the scope of questioning and the material that could be used 144 David CHANDLER, SAO Sarun, Al ROCKOFF, Sydney SCHANBERG, KAING Guek Eav, Stephen HEDER and Philip SHORT. NUON Chea initially proposed 132 witnesses relevant to the historical background (Summaries of Proposed Witnesses, Experts and Civil Parties, E9/10, 23 February 2011); See e.g. Decision on Objections to Documents Proposed to be put before the Chamber on the Co-Prosecutor’s Annexes A1-A5 and to Documents Cited in Paragraphs of the Closing Order Relevant to the First Two Trial Segments of Case 002/01, E185, 9 April 2012. 145 See e.g. Third Decision on Objections to Documents Proposed for Admission before the Trial Chamber, E185/2, 12 August 2013, para. 27; 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, para. 34. 146 Immediate Appeal against Second Severance Order and Response to Co-Prosecutors’ Appeal against Same, E284/4/1, 27 May 2013, paras 18-19. Case 002/01, Judgement, 7 August 2014 - Public 30