01005698 Case File No. 002/19-09-2007/ECCC/TC E313 to challenge the credibility of the individuals heard in court. 147 Further, NUON Chea and KHIEU Samphan argue that the Chamber violated their rights by admitting statements and prior testimony of witnesses, Civil Parties and experts absent the opportunity for confrontation.148 60. Pursuant to Internal Rules 85 and 87, the President and Chamber excluded proceedings and lines of questioning that unnecessarily delayed the trial or were not conducive to ascertaining the truth. The Chamber encouraged all parties to limit their examination of persons called at trial to matters falling within the scope of Case 002/01.149 Further, taking into account the capacity in which individuals were called to give evidence, the Chamber limited the scope of questioning in order to ensure that examination did not stray into irrelevant topics.150 61. All parties were permitted to use any of the documents on their Internal Rule 80(3) lists in questioning individuals to refresh their memory, corroborate or draw relevant inferences from the substance of a document based on their direct knowledge or to test credibility.151 Further, all parties were able to propose new evidence for use 147 NUON Chea’s Closing Submissions in Case 002/01, E295/6/3, 26 September 2013, paras 58, 6079, 91; T. 22 October 2013 (NUON Chea Defence Closing Statement), pp. 41-47; T. 31 October 2013 (NUON Chea), p. 31; Urgent Request by the Defence Team of Mr. KHIEU Samphan for an Immediate Stay or Proceedings, E275/2/1/1, 1 August 2013, paras 95-96; Withdrawal of Notice of Intent pursuant to Internal Rule 90, E287/2, 30 July 2013, paras 2, 10-11, 13-14; Immediate Appeal against Second Severance Order and Response to Co-Prosecutors’ Appeal against Same, E284/4/1, 27 May 2013, para. 77. NUON Chea argues that the Chamber’s decisions concerning the scope and procedure for examining individuals heard in court had “no or virtually no reasoning” thereby violating the Accused’s right to a reasoned decision (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. 148 NUON Chea’s Closing Submissions in Case 002/01, E295/6/3, 26 September 2013, paras 102-115 (requesting the Chamber to take this fact into account in its final assessment of evidence and disregard statements going to proof of live issues in Case 002/01 absent the opportunity for confrontation); T. 22 October 2013 (NUON Chea Defence Closing Statement), p. 44; T. 31 October 2013 (NUON Chea Defence Rebuttal), p. 36; T. 25 October 2013 (KHIEU Samphan Defence Closing Statement), p. 89. 149 Response to Issues Raised by Parties in Advance of Trial and Scheduling of Informal Meeting with Senior Legal Officer on 18 November 2011 (TC), E141, 17 November 2011, p. 2; Consolidated Schedule of Witnesses and Experts for Early 2013 (TC), E236/4, 8 January 2013, para. 2. 150 For example, Stephen HEDER declined appointment as an expert and was therefore called as a witness solely in relation to the numerous documents he authored on the case file (Announcement of Remaining Hearings Prior to the Close of Evidentiary Proceedings in Case 002/01 and Scheduling of Final Trial Management Meeting for 13 June 2013 (TC), E288, 31 May 2013, para. 4). Examination on topics beyond those documents he authored on the case file was therefore not allowed. 151 Notice to the Parties Regarding Revised Modalities of Questioning and Response to CoProsecutors’ Request for Clarification Regarding Use of Documents during Witness Testimony (E201) (TC), E201/2, 13 June 2012. Case 002/01, Judgement, 7 August 2014 - Public 31