01005699 Case File No. 002/19-09-2007/ECCC/TC E313 during questioning provided that they satisfied the requirements of Internal Rule 87(4) or demonstrated that the proposed evidence was in the interests of justice, for example because it was exculpatory or related closely to the testimony of a witness. 152 Finally, in the interest of just and expeditious proceedings, the Chamber admitted statements of certain individuals not called to give oral evidence, noting that no conviction would be solely or decisively based thereupon.153 For example, the Chamber admitted statements of witnesses and Civil Parties in place of their oral evidence insofar as such statements were relevant to proof of matters other than the acts and conduct of the Accused as charged in the Closing Order, including the historical background, administrative and communications structures, the crime base, Democratic Kampuchea policies, the impact of the crimes on victims and/or the contextual elements of crimes against humanity.154 62. Insofar as the Accused allege unfair limitations on their ability to challenge evidence and examine witnesses, they fail either to demonstrate prejudice or that they exhausted other available means, for example by submission in rebuttal or the proposal of documentary evidence. The Chamber finds that the right of the Accused to challenge evidence and examine witnesses was not infringed. 2.4.9. Right to Adversarial Debate 63. KHIEU Samphan argues that the key document presentation hearings were limited to presentation of documents and excluded real adversarial debate, since the opportunity to challenge the entirety of the evidence submitted at trial can take place 152 Decision Concerning New Documents and Other Related Issues, E190, 30 April 2012, para. 36; Response to Internal Rule 87(4) Requests to Place New Documents on the Case File concerning the Testimony of Witnesses François PONCHAUD and Sydney SCHANBERG (E243) and Experts Philip SHORT (E226, E226/1 and E230) and Elizabeth BECKER (E232 and E232/1) (TC), E260, 18 January 2013, para. 5; Response to Your Letter of 21 June 2012 concerning the Trial Chamber’s Decision on IENG Sary’s Rule 87(4) Request (E172/24/4/1) (TC), E172/24/4/4, 16 July 2012, para. 4. 153 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, paras 28 (noting that the Chamber would not rely upon statements admitted in place of oral testimony in considering the acts and conduct of the accused as charged), 29; See also, Decision on Co-Prosecutors’ Rule 92 Submission Regarding the Admission of Witness Statements and Other Documents before the Trial Chamber,E96/7, 20 June 2012, para. 21. 154 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. Case 002/01, Judgement, 7 August 2014 - Public 32