01185923 002/19-09-2007-ECCC/SC Doc No. F26/12 official capacity'. These officials carried out acts constituting torture 'for the purpose of . . a conleSSlOn .c:' ' hment ' . 139 ob tammg or 0 f PUlllS 57. Further, KAING Guek Eav (alias Duch, accused and convicted in Case 001) himself admitted that S-2l detainees were subjected to systemic interrogation with the routine use of violence,140 aimed at extracting confessions through torture, which was prescribed by him in detailed annotations; such annotations were also examined by the Trial Chamber. 141 As a result, S-2l detainees lived in a "permanent climate of fear".142 It was established that inmates could "hear screaming and crying",143 and would see "that other detainees returning from interrogations showed signs of severe beating, mutilation, bruises and cuts." 144 In light of the Case 001 findings of torture, physical mistreatment and psychological suffering, in the absence of substantiated indications to the contrary, the Supreme Court Chamber is satisfied that there is a real risk that the S-2l Statements were obtained through torture and each statement may thus be presumed to be so obtained. 58. As to the level of proof required for the purpose of introducing the S-2l Statements into evidence for the truth of facts narrated therein, the Supreme Court Chamber considers that relying ultimately on the presumption that all the S-2l Statements were the result of torture would not sit well with the obligation of the Chambers of the ECCC to establish the truth, as relevant to the charges. The torture at S-2l was not alleged to have taken place at the behest or with the knowledge of the prosecution authorities; accordingly, the prosecution authorities are in no better position than any of the other parties to confirm or refute a claim that information was extracted through torture. Moreover, excluding it as soon as there is a real risk that it was obtained through torture would, in the circumstances of the present case, be potentially prejudicial to NUON Chea, who seeks to rely on the S-2l Statements. Accordingly, any party that seeks to rely on a statement taken at S-2l should be allowed to rebut the presumption by offering proof that the information in question was not the result of torture. For that reason, when deciding on this issue, the Chambers need to take into account, in addition to the submissions of the parties, any relevant information of which they are aware; eventually, a statement taken at S-2l may only be admitted into evidence if it has been established, on a balance of probabilities, that it was not the result of torture. 139 Appeal Judgement, 3 February 2012, F28 ("Case 001 Appeal Judgment"), para. 209, quoting Case 001 Judgement, 26 July 2010, E188 ("Case 001 Trial Judgment"), paras 241, 359-360 (emphasis added). 140 Case 001 Trial Judgment, paras 153 et seq. and references thereto. 141 Case 001 Trial Judgment, paras 176-177. 142 Case 001 Trial Judgment, para. 258. 143 Case 001 Trial Judgment, para. 262. 144 Case 001 Trial Judgment, para. 264. DECISION ON OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENT LISTS - FULL REASONS 28/40