01005677 Case File No. 002/19-09-2007/ECCC/TC E313 directly applicable before the Chamber.41 The Constitutional Council has deemed the ECCC Law to be valid, including its provisions granting the ECCC jurisdiction over international law.42 19. The Chamber notes that Article 9 of the Agreement defines crimes against humanity by reference to the Rome Statute, while Article 5 of the ECCC Law does not make such reference in its definition of the crimes. The Supreme Court Chamber has already ruled that the jurisdiction of the ECCC over crimes against humanity is limited by the definition of the crimes as it stood under international law at the time of the alleged criminal conduct.43 Therefore, neither Article 5 of the ECCC Law, nor Article 9 of the Agreement, can be interpreted as a retroactive amendment to that definition.44 The Chamber therefore affirms that it has jurisdiction over those international crimes identified in the ECCC Law which satisfy the principle of legality. 20. Insofar as the Trial and Supreme Court Chambers did not previously evaluate whether the crimes and modes of responsibility at issue in Case 002/01 were recognised in domestic or international law by 1975, the Chamber does so in this judgement.45 The Chamber also considers whether the relevant crimes and modes of responsibility were sufficiently foreseeable and accessible to the Accused.46 41 When adopting the new Criminal Code, which incorporates definitions of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes into national law, the Cambodian lawmakers further expressly stated in Article 8 that the “provisions of this Code may not have the effect of denying justice to the victims of serious offenses which, under special legislation, are characterised as violations of international humanitarian law, international custom, or international conventions recognised by the Kingdom of Cambodia”. 42 Constitutional Council Decision on EC Law, E9/7.2, Decision No. 040/002/2001, Case No. 038/001/2001, 12 February 2001, pp. 1-2 (original text in Khmer. Unofficial translation in English). Similarly, the Pre-Trial Chamber held that the Royal Government of Cambodia included an exception for international crimes in their formulation of the principle of legality in national law (Decision on Appeals by NUON Chea and IENG Thirith Against the Closing Order, D427/3/15, 15 February 2011, paras 96-97). 43 KAING Guek Eav Appeal Judgement, paras 99-100. 44 KAING Guek Eav Appeal Judgement, paras 99-100. 45 See Section 9: Applicable Law: Crimes Against Humanity, paras 411, 415, 426, 435-436. 46 See Section 13: Individual Criminal Responsibility, paras 689, 691, 697, 699, 701, 703, 714. The Pre-Trial, Trial and Supreme Court Chambers, in determining whether a crime or mode of responsibility was sufficiently foreseeable and accessible to , took into account whether a crime constituted customary international law, whether a crime was codified in conventional law, the grave nature of the crimes, a record of charges and convictions for the charged crimes at international tribunals and other courts prosecuting international crimes, whether a crime was also criminalised in domestic law and the position of the accused in the (Decision on IENG Sary’s Appeal Against the Case 002/01, Judgement, 7 August 2014 - Public 10