01005691 Case File No. 002/19-09-2007/ECCC/TC E313 2.4.4. Facilities and Time Available for the Preparation of a Defence 44. The Accused raise a number of issues related to the time and facilities available for preparation of a defence including belated translations into their working languages, equality of arms between the Co-Prosecutors and the Defence, and the period between notification of the charges and deadlines for proposing evidence.118 Each of these issues has already been addressed by the Chamber and relief has been provided where it was in the interests of justice (for example, the provision of interpreters and adjustment of relevant procedures). Considering in particular the lengthy judicial investigation, the Chamber re-affirms that the Accused had proportional and adequate time and facilities for the preparation of a defence throughout the proceedings.119 The parties also had procedural equality in presenting their case and the Accused have failed to substantiate any violation of the principle of equality of arms.120 The Accused allege no new facts or circumstances arising since prior decisions concerning the time and facilities available for preparation of a defence and what amounts to requests for reconsideration of these prior decisions by the Accused are therefore inadmissible. 118 Some of these issues were revisited by the Defence at the close of the hearing (NUON Chea’s Closing Submissions in Case 002/01, E295/6/3, 26 September 2013, paras 63-67, 87-88 (concerning the allegedly ultra vires procedure for filing initial lists of evidence); T. 31 October 2013 (NUON Chea), pp. 3, 29-30 (equality of arms); Urgent Request by the Defence Team of Mr. KHIEU Samphan for an Immediate Stay or Proceedings, E275/2/1/1, 1 August 2013, paras 76, 93-94 (concerning translations of evidence and filings)). 119 See e.g. Order to File Material in Preparation for Trial (TC), E9, 17 January 2011; Notification of the Trial Chamber’s Disposition of Request for Extension of Deadlines (E9/6) (TC), E9/6/1, 14 February 2011; Decision on Requests for Extension of Time to File Lists of Documents and Exhibits, E9/16/4, 29 March 2011; Response to IENG Sary Defence Request for Access to Strictly Confidential Documents on the Case File (E118) (TC), E118/4, 28 November 2011; Reclassification of Additional Documents on the Case File, E118/5 (TC), 12 January 2012; Notification of Strictly Confidential Documents related to the Health of the Accused (TC), E118/6, 19 January 2012; Reclassification of Additional Documents on the Case File (TC), E118/7, 30 August 2013; Decision on NUON Chea’s Preliminary Objection alleging the Unconstitutional Character of the ECCC Internal Rules, E51/14, 8 August 2011; Decision Concerning New Documents and Other Related Issues, E190, 30 April 2012; Decision on KHIEU Samphan Request for Declaration of Inadmissibility of the Co-Prosecutors’ Closing Brief (E295/7), E295/7/2, 14 October 2013, para. 6. 120 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. 21 (“the role the Co-Prosecutors played in the Preliminary Investigation and other case does not impact the equality of arms so long as all parties have procedural equality in presenting their case”). Case 002/01, Judgement, 7 August 2014 - Public 24