01185918 002119-09-2007-ECCC/SC Doc No. F26112 excluded where there exists a real risk that it was obtained by torture or coercion, and on that basis objects to the use of the S-2l Statements in the July 2015 Hearing. los By contrast, NUON Chea in his Appeal Brief emphasises that "the evidence has not established that any particular confession was produced by torture and intends to litigate this question of fact in Case 002/02".109 The Supreme Court Chamber notes that the question of whether all S-2l prisoners were tortured and whether, consequently, all statements were made as a result of torture was the subject of a dispute among the parties before the Trial Chamber in Case 002/02. 110 49. Article 321 of the CPC is silent both as to the applicable standard of proof and the allocation of the burden of proof to establish torture or duress for the purpose of the exclusionary rule. Upon seeking guidance at the international level, III the Supreme Court Chamber notes that the standard and burden of proof are not settled internationally, tum on the nature of the proceedings and circumstances of the case, and, in any event, are discussed in cases where the person concerned sought to exclude evidence against him or her, and not to use evidence in his or her defence. Nevertheless, a few general principles can be extracted from this international jurisprudence, as discussed below. 50. The CAT Committee generally ruled that, as a corollary to the absolute prohibition of torture, where a petitioner makes allegations that evidence - whether his or her own confession or other witnesses' statements - was obtained as a result of torture, the State concerned is under a duty to promptly and impartially investigate the veracity of the claim.112 The CAT Committee's pronouncements on the requisite standard of proof, however, were not consistent. l13 In some cases, the CAT Committee deferred to the assessments undertaken by KHIEU Samphlln's Objections, paras 13-14. NUON Chea Appeal Brief, fn. 1902. 110 T. (EN), 24 April 2015, EII292.1, p. 30; T. (EN), 25 May 2015, EI/304.1, pp. 3-47; T. (EN), 26 June 2015, EI/319.1, pp. 21, 22; See also NUON Chea's Case 002/02 Submissions; Co-Prosecutors' Case 002/02 Submissions; Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyers' Case 002/02 Submissions; KHIEU Samphlln's Case 002/02 Submissions; Conclusions de la Defense de M. KHIEU Samphan concernant l'usage des informations obtenues sous la torture, 21 May 2015, E350/4.2. III As envisaged under Article 12 of the ECCC Agreement and Article 33 new of the ECCC Law. 112 CAT Committee, P. E. v. France, Communication No. 19312001, CAT/C1291D119312001, 21 November 2002 ("p. E. v. France"), para. 6.3. 113 P. E. v. France, para. 6.6 (holding that, for the prohibition in Article 15 of the CAT to apply, the allegations must be shown to be "well-founded"; the use of this standard has been criticised). See, Manfred Nowak & Elizabeth McArthur, The United Nations Convention Against Torture: A Commentary, p. 517; G. K. v. Switzerland, para. 6.11 (requiring that allegations be "well-founded"). See also, CAT Committee, Ali v. Tunisia, Communication No. 29112006, CAT/C/411D129112006, 21 November 2008, para. 15.4 (finding that torture has been established in the light of the applicant's allegations vis-a-vis failure of the State party to provide "sufficiently substantiated" counter arguments); Aarrass v. Morocco, Communication No. 47712011, lOX 109 DECISION ON OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENT LISTS - FULL REASONS 23/40