01185924 002/19-09-2007-ECCC/SC Doc No. F26/12 59. For the limited purposes of the July 2015 Hearing, however, the Supreme Court Chamber considers that the S-2l Statements are established to have been derived from torture. As such, they fall under the exclusionary rule of Article 15 of the CAT. The Supreme Court Chamber emphasises that it makes this assessment in the circumstances where the parties intend to use the S-2l Statements to examine witnesses in the July 2015 Hearing; as such, the importance of the S-2l Statements to the proceedings is lower than if they were to be admitted into evidence. Moreover, none of the parties seeking to use the S-2l Statements has asserted that they were not extorted through torture. It follows that the Supreme Court Chamber is not required to carry out a more thorough inquiry into how the S-2l Statements were obtained. D. 60. Whether Article 15 may be derogated to enable the use of the S-21 Statements to assist in defence of NUON CHEA? NUON Chea argues that Article 15 of the CAT only prohibits the use of torture-tainted evidence against an accused and therefore has the effect of permitting its use by an accused, as confirmed by subsequent State practice, the examples of which limit exclusionary rules to evidence offered by the prosecution. 145 He contends that the object and purpose of Article 15 of the CAT are only aimed at preventing the prosecution from benefiting from the use of information obtained through torture, but do not cover any other scenarios, particularly where a defendant wishes to use such evidence to prove his or her innocence. 146 61. At the outset, the Supreme Court Chamber observes that the fact that certain municipal systems have express exclusionary rules only in relation to evidence adduced by the agency investigating or prosecuting the case demonstrates only that legislative decisions were limited to addressing the most frequent pattern of abuse; it does not demonstrate that in those municipal systems torture-tainted evidence is legally admissible in other situations. 147 In this NUON Chea Appeal Brief, paras 712-716. NUON Chea Appeal Brief, paras 717 -722. 147 Concerning the examples given by the NUON Chea (see NUON Chea Appeal Brief, paras 714-715, 721722), the Supreme Court Chamber notes that the source cited, (E.U. Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights, "Opinion on the status of illegally obtained evidence in criminal procedures in the Member States of the European Union", CFR-CDF, 30 November 2003 ("E.U. Opinion"), p. 7), focuses on illegality in breaching the right to private life, plainly leaving the application of Article 15 of the CAT as a proscription not considered for derogation. See "The Legal Framework", E.U. Opinion, p. 6 fn. 7 and p. 7. The specific examples cited in the NUON Chea Appeal Brief of waiving exclusionary rules in favour of the defence derived from the E.U. Opinion and the example of New Zealand legislation ("2006 Act"), which has been interpreted to allow the use in support of the defence of out of court confession of a co-defendant, do not seem relevant as, on the facts cited, they do not concern statements obtained through torture. Regarding the specific legal systems invoked as examples: For the United Kingdom, see A and Others v Secretary a/State (no. 2), paras 91-97. In Germany, while sections 136a and 69 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure apply inter alia to torture in the context 145 146 DECISION ON OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENT LISTS - FULL REASONS 29/40