01185905 002/19-09-2007-ECCC/SC Doc No. F26/12 witnesses. There is no good reason why availability in the public domain should lift the requirement of novelty of evidence. Given that the case at hand deals with allegations of crimes on a massive scale, there are likely to be many such documents. Allowing such documents to be introduced into evidence at the appellate level without consideration of the criteria of Internal Rules 108(7) and 104(1) would belie the rationale of these Internal Rules, and could lead to significant challenges in the management of the proceedings. Accordingly, NUON Chea's argument in this regard is rejected. 23. Turning to the specific circumstances of the case at hand, the Supreme Court Chamber notes that some of the documents on the parties' document lists are the subj ect of requests for additional evidence by NUON Chea. 45 The Supreme Court Chamber has not ruled on these requests yet, and it has not even received responses in respect of all of them. Given the insufficiency of time to dispose of the entirety of these requests before hearing these witnesses, the Supreme Court Chamber has decided to allow the parties to use the documents that are subject to pending requests for additional evidence, to the extent that they feature on their respective document lists. This is without prejudice to the Supreme Court Chamber's eventual decision on these additional evidence requests. 24. The Supreme Court Chamber notes furthermore that NUON Chea submits that some documents on NUON Chea's Document List will be the subject of additional evidence requests that will be filed in the future. 46 In the Supreme Court Chamber's view, the mere intention of a party to request additional evidence in the future is an insufficient basis to allow the use of such documents in the examination of these witnesses. Accordingly, NUON Chea's submission in this regard is rejected. 25. The Supreme Court Chamber has therefore decided not to allow the parties to use in the examination of the three witnesses in the upcoming hearings any of the documents referred to on their respective document lists that are not already part of the evidentiary record of the trial of Case 002/01 or the subject of a pending request for additional evidence. NUON Chea's Fourth Request to Consider Additional Evidence in Connection with the Appeal Against the Trial Judgment in Case 002/01, 15 June 2015, F2/6; NUON Chea's Fifth Request to Consider and Obtain Additional Evidence in Conncetion with the Appeal Against the Trial Judgement in Case 002/01, 25 June 2015, 45 F217. 46 NUON Chea's Objections, paras 7-8. DECISION ON OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENT LISTS - FULL REASONS 10/40