01185909 002/19-09-2007-ECCC/SC Doc No. F26/12 33. Article 15 of the CAT stipulates an exclusionary rule relating to statements extracted through torture: Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made. 34. The Supreme Court Chamber considers that the normative content of Article 15 of the CAT is sufficiently precise not to depend on implementing legislation for it becoming operative. 64 Further, in accordance with the Cambodian Constitution, it is directly applicable in Cambodia, given that Cambodia ratified the CAT on 15 October 1992 and that Article 31(1) of the Cambodian Constitution provides that "[t]he Kingdom of Cambodia shall recognize and respect human rights as stipulated in the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the covenants and conventions related to human rights, women's and children's rights".65 This finding confirms conclusions expressed in the be admissible if: (a) The violation casts substantial doubt on the reliability of the evidence; or (b) The admission of the evidence would be antithetical to and would seriously damage the integrity of the proceedings"); International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Rules of Procedure and Evidence, IT/32/Rev. 50, adopted on 11 February 1994, amended on 8 July 2015 ("ICTY RPE"), Rule 95 and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) Rules of Procedure and Evidence, adopted on 29 June 1995, amended on 13 May 2015 ("ICTR RPE"), Rule 95 ("No evidence shall be admissible if obtained by methods which cast substantial doubt on its reliability or if its admission is antithetical to, and would seriously damage, the integrity of the proceedings"); Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL), Rules of Procedure and Evidence, adopted on 16 January 2002, amended on 31 May 2012, Rule 95 ("No evidence shall be admitted ifits admission would bring the administration of justice into serious disrepute"); United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET), Regulation No. 2000/30 On Transitional Rules of Criminal Procedure, UNTAET/REGI2000/30, adopted on 25 September 2000, amended on 14 September 2001, Rule 34(2) ("The Court may exclude any evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect, or is unnecessarily cumulative with other evidence. No evidence shall be admitted if obtained by methods that cast substantial doubt on its reliability or if its admission is antithetical to, and would seriously damage, the integrity of the proceedings, including without limitation evidence obtained through torture, coercion or threats to moral or physical integrity"); Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL), Rules of Procedure and Evidence, adopted on 20 March 2009, amended on 12 February 2015, Rule 162 (Exclusion of Certain Evidence: ("(A) No evidence shall be admissible if obtained by methods which cast substantial doubt on its reliability or if its admission is antithetical to, and would seriously damage, the integrity of the proceedings, (B) In particular, evidence shall be excluded if it has been obtained in violation of international standards on human rights, including the prohibition of torture"). 64 The SCC notes the that the opening words of Article 15 of the CAT do not imply that implementing legislation is necessary; rather, they signal deference to new or existing legislation that States Parties' legal systems may enact for the implementation of the obligations arising from the provision (see Committee Against Torture ("CAT Committee"), Guidelines on the Form and Content of Initial Reports Under Article 19 to be Submitted by States Parties to the Convention Against Torture, CAT/C/4/Rev.318, July 2005, para 24). In this regard, it is of note that, upon ratifying the CAT in 1987, Austria declared that it "regards article 15 as the legal basis for the inadmissibility provided for therein of the use of statements which are established to have been made as a result of torture", conversely, the United States of America declared, upon ratifying the CAT, that it considered that "articles 1 through 16 of the Convention are not self-executing" (Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary-General, Status as at 1 April 2009,Vol. I Part I, ST/LEG/SER.EI26, United Nations Publication 2009, pp. 360, 363-4). 65 On the domestic applicability of international human rights treaties in Cambodia, see the decision of the Cambodian Constitutional Council, Case No. 131/00312007, Decision No. 092/00312007, 10 July 2007. This decision was noted with approval by the CAT Committee, which understood it to mean "that international DECISION ON OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENT LISTS - FULL REASONS 14/40