01185910 002119-09-2007-ECCC/SC Doc No. F26112 jurisprudence of the Pre-Trial Chamber, which has ruled that Article 15 of the CAT is part of the "law" as referred to in the CPC and Internal Rule 87(3)( d). 66 The Trial Chamber appears to have taken the same position when finding that it was "bound by Article 15 [of the CAT]", which was "reflected" in Internal Rule 21(3) and Article 38 of the Cambodian Constitution. 67 35. On the relation between the exclusionary rule enshrined in Article 15 of the CAT and that in Article 321 of the CPC, both of which are applicable in Cambodia, it falls to be noted that the two norms are not conterminous. The exclusionary rule of Article 15 of the CAT encompasses "any proceedings", thus covering more than criminal procedure. At the same time, it covers only information extorted by means of torture, which is narrowly defined as follows: For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. 68 36. The exclusionary rule in Article 321 of the CPC, on the other hand, speaks more broadly of "physical or mental duress". Moreover, unlike Article 15 of the CAT, it does not foresee any exception. treaties are part of the national law and that courts should take treaty norms into account when interpreting laws and deciding cases", (Concluding Observations of the Committee Against Torture (Cambodia), CAT/C/KHM/COI2, 20 January 2011, para. 10). 66 Decision on Admissibility of the Appeal Against Co-Investigating Judges' Order on Use of Statements Which Were or May Have Been Obtained by Torture, 18 December 2009, D130/9121 ("PTC Admissibility Decision on Torture-Derived Statements"), para. 27; Decision on Admissibility of Ieng Sary's Appeal Against the OCIJ's Constructive Denial ofIeng Sary's Requests Concerning the OCIJ's Identification of and Reliance on Evidence Obtained Through Torture, 10 May 2010, D1301713/5 ("Second PTC Admissibility Decision on Torture-Derived Statements"), para. 35. 67 Trial Judgment, para. 35, citing T. (EN), 5 April 2011, EII2.I, pp. 96, 97; Trial Chamber Response to Motions E67, E57, E56, E58, E23, E59, E20, E33, E71 and E73 Following Trial Management Meeting of 5 April 2011 (TC), 8 April 2011, E74, p. 3; Trial Chamber Memorandum entitled "Trial Chamber response to portions of E114, E11411, E13111/9, E131/6, E136 and EI58", 31 January 2012, E162, para. 9; Decision on Objections to Documents Proposed to be Put Before the Chamber on the Co-Prosecutors Annexes AI-A5 and to Documents Cited in Paragraphs of the Closing Order Relevant to the First Two Trial Segments of Case 002/0 I, 9 April 2012, E185, para. 21; T. (EN), 3 October 2012, EI1129.1, p. 74 ("The Trial Chamber has consistently and unanimously ruled that confessions obtained contrary to the provisions of the Convention Against Torture cannot be used as evidence of or for the basis for questioning"). See also T. (EN), 28 May 2009, EI127.1, p. 45; Case 001, Decision on Parties Requests to Put Certain Materials before the Chamber pursuant to Internal Rule 87(2),28 October 2009, E176, para. 8. 68 Article I of the CAT. DECISION ON OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENT LISTS - FULL REASONS 15/40