01185901 002/19-09-2007-ECCC/SC Doc No. F26/12 List, NUON Chea notes that, instead of providing ERN numbers, the Civil Party Lead CoLawyers listed the approximate time stamp of the transcripts in question. 26 14. KHIEU Samphiin notes in this regard that it has been the standard practice of the Co- Prosecutors and all other parties to provide ERN numbers for all language versions of documents, including French.27 He also submits that the Co-Prosecutors' Document List is very long and contains more documents than could possibly be used in the time allotted to the Co-Prosecutors for the examination of the three witnesses, and that many of the documents are seemingly irrelevant to the matters at hand and have been on the case file for many years, but have never been used in the context of Case 002/01. 28 He submits on that basis that the 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 (see Internal Rule 87(3)( e)), with the exception of prior statements of the three witnesses scheduled to testify before the Supreme Court Chamber. 29 15. The Supreme Court Chamber recalls that it instructed the parties to provide, as part of their document lists, the ERN numbers of the portion expected to be used during questioning for all documents longer than 30 pages. 30 The purpose of this instruction was to enable the other parties, as well as the Chamber, to prepare properly for the upcoming hearing. Furthermore, the provision of ERN numbers would allow the parties to formulate objections to the other parties' document lists within the short time limits set by the Supreme Court Chamber. The Co-Prosecutors have not provided any explanation as to why the CoProsecutors' Document List did not include complete ERN numbers, why the ERN numbers for the Khmer version of documents could only be provided on the following day, and why the ERN numbers for the French version of documents were only provided two days after the time limit, and only upon request of KHIEU Samphiin. The Supreme Court Chamber notes furthermore that the Co-Prosecutors' Document List was very long, containing more than 150 often lengthy documents. While the Supreme Court Chamber is aware that it was not the CoProsecutors who requested the testimony of the three witnesses, which may make it difficult for them to select relevant documents to be used in their examination, the high number of documents on the list aggravated the prejudice to the other parties caused by the missing NUON Chea's Objections, para. 10. KHIEU Samphlln's Objections, para. 9. 28 KHIEU Samphlln's Objections, paras 8, 10. 29 KHIEU Samphlln's Objections, para. 11. 30 Directions, operative paragraph 3 a). 26 27 DECISION ON OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENT LISTS - FULL REASONS 6/40