01005690 Case File No. 002/19-09-2007/ECCC/TC E313 The Accused allege no new facts or circumstances arising since these decisions were issued and their requests, which amount to requests for reconsideration of these prior decisions, are therefore inadmissible. Nevertheless, where defects in the investigation were alleged with sufficient particularity and have clear relevance to Case 002/01, the Chamber will consider them in its final assessment of the evidence.113 2.4.3. Impartiality of the Trial Chamber 43. NUON Chea challenges the impartiality of the Trial Chamber, as well as the sufficiency of measures taken to counter alleged improper pressure and interference.114 These challenges repeat submissions previously made in Case 002/01, which were deemed unsubstantiated and dismissed.115 In February and August 2012, the Accused alerted the Chamber to public pronouncements of senior government officials concerning the guilt of the Accused and the rights of the defence. 116 Both the Supreme Court and Trial Chambers issued warnings against further improper pronouncements by senior government officials, affirmed the impartiality of the Trial Chamber and emphasised the duty and ability of the Chamber to disregard these statements in considering the alleged guilt of the Accused. 117 NUON Chea alleges no new facts or circumstances arising since these decisions were issued and what amounts to a request for reconsideration of these prior decisions is therefore inadmissible. The Chamber nevertheless re-affirms its impartiality and that it will disregard any irrelevant information not put before it pursuant to Internal Rule 87 in reaching its judgement. 113 Decision on NUON Chea Request for a Rule 35 Investigation regarding Inconsistencies in the Audio and Written Records of OCIJ Witness Interviews, E142/3, 13 March 2012, paras 6-15. 114 NUON Chea’s Closing Submissions in Case 002/01, E295/6/3, 26 September 2013, paras 23-26, 58, 80-86; T. 22 October 2013 (NUON Chea Defence Closing Statement), pp. 6-8, 28-31, 49-52. 115 Decision on IENG Sary’s Application to Disqualify Judge NIL Nonn and Related Requests, E5/3, 28 January 2011; Decision on IENG Thirith, NUON Chea and IENG Sary’s Applications for Disqualification of Judges NIL Nonn, Silvia CARTWRIGHT, YA Sokhan, Jean-Marc LAVERGNE and THOU Mony, E55/4, 23 March 2011. 116 Application for Summary Action against HUN Sen pursuant to Rule 35, E176, 22 February 2012, paras 17-23; Rule 35 Request Calling for Summary Action against Minister of Foreign Affairs HOR Namhong, E219, 13 August 2012, paras 12-22. 117 Decision on NUON Chea’s Appeal against the Trial Chamber’s Decision on Rule 35 Applications for Summary Action (SCC), E176/2/1/4, 14 September 2012; Decision on Rule 35 Applications for Summary Action, E176/2, 11 May 2012. Case 002/01, Judgement, 7 August 2014 - Public 23