01185911 002/19-09-2007-ECCC/SC Doc No. F26/12 37. The Supreme Court Chamber considers that Article 321 of the CPC has a dual function. First, it implements Article 15 of the CAT in the area of criminal procedure and, as such, needs to be interpreted in line with the normative content of Article 15 of the CAT. 69 Accordingly, the exception allowing the use of information resulting from torture under the conditions defined in the second sentence of Article 15 of the CAT is not tacitly obliterated in Cambodian criminal procedure by the fact that this exception is not articulated in Article 321 of the CPC. Second, it extends the exclusionary rule beyond the strict terms of the CAT, covering information "given under physical or mental duress", even if not amounting to torture in terms of Article 1 of the CAT. It follows that, where a statement is inadmissible under Article 15 of the CAT, it is necessarily also inadmissible under Article 321 of the CPC. Conversely, information not excluded under Article 15 of the CAT may still be inadmissible under Article 321 of the CPC. 38. The Supreme Court Chamber notes that NUON Chea and the Co-Prosecutors do not dispute the applicability of the exclusionary rule contained in Article 15 of the CAT to the ECCC proceedings. Rather, they essentially seek to limit the extent of the prohibition on the use of information obtained through torture for reasons of utility or necessity in scenarios, which, in their view, fall outside the scope of Article 15 of the CAT. The parties' arguments are centred on that provision and therefore it remains the principal plane of reference for the Supreme Court Chamber's analysis. 39. According to Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 70 ("VCLT"), an international treaty must be interpreted "in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in light of its object and purpose". Furthermore, any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty, subsequent practice, which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation, and any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties may be taken into account. 7l As such, the Supreme Court Chamber considers that, in interpreting Article 15 of the CAT, particular weight should be given to the practice of the CAT Committee, Initial Report of State Parties due in 1990 (United Kingdom), CAT/C/9/Add.6, 10 May 1991, paras 121-123; Initial Reports of States Parties due in 1995 (United States of America), CAT/CI2S/Add.5, 9 February 2000, paras 11, 49, 5S; Sixth Periodic Reports of States Parties due in 200S (Canada), CAT/C/CAN/6, 22 June 2011, para. 3; Fifth Periodic Report of States Parties due in 200S (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), CAT/C/GBRl5, 21 May 2012, paras 4, 110,504. 70 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, adopted on 23 May 1969 and entered into force on 27 January 19S0, United Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. 1155, p. 340. 71 See Article 31(3) of the VCLT. 69 DECISION ON OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENT LISTS - FULL REASONS 16/40