01185902 002/19-09-2007-ECCC/SC Doc No. F26/12 ERN numbers. The tardy and piecemeal provision of ERN numbers with the Updated CoProsecutors' Document List and subsequent e-mails could not heal this prejudice. 16. In these circumstances, the Supreme Court Chamber has decided not to allow the Co- Prosecutors to use any of the documents listed on the Co-Prosecutors' Document List that are longer than 30 pages, as the Co-Prosecutors did not provide, or provided incomplete, ERN numbers by the time limit expired. In contrast, the Supreme Court Chamber is not persuaded by KHIEU Samphiin's more general argument that that Co-Prosecutors should not be allowed to use any of the documents on the Co-Prosecutors' Document List because they are intended to prolong the proceedings. 3l While it is true that the number of documents on that list is high, there is no indication that the Co-Prosecutors seek to prolong the proceedings, in particular since the Supreme Court Chamber has already set a time frame for their examination of the witnesses. 17. As to the Civil Parties' Document List, which only consists of transcripts from the trial proceedings in Case 002/01, the Supreme Court Chamber notes that, instead of containing ERN numbers, it contains references to the time stamps in the transcript. While, as NUON Chea notes,32 this is in breach of the Directions, providing the time stamps nevertheless allows all parties and the Chamber to identify with precision the relevant excepts of the transcripts in question, and this across all language versions of the transcripts. For that reason, the Supreme Court Chamber has decided to accept the Civil Parties' Document List despite its non-compliance with the Directions. v. DOCUMENTS NOT PUT BEFORE THE TRIAL CHAMBER IN CASE 18. 002/01 The Supreme Court Chamber notes that the document lists submitted by the parties contain several documents that were not put before the Trial Chamber and subjected to examination in terms of Internal Rule 87(2) in the context of Case 002/01. The CoProsecutors submit in this regard that such documents should not be used in the examination of the three witnesses, noting that the Supreme Court Chamber has held that a three-part test applies to the admission of additional evidence on appeal. 33 They submit that, as an exception 31 32 33 KHIEU Samphlln's Objections, para. 11. NUON Chea's Objections, para. 10. Co-Prosecutors' Objections, paras 2-3. DECISION ON OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENT LISTS - FULL REASONS 7/40