01185904 002/19-09-2007-ECCC/SC Doc No. F26/12 Chamber has the discretionary power recognised by Internal Rule 104( 1) to call "new evidence" on appeal, which it may exercise in the interests of justice. 43 20. In light of the above legal framework, the Supreme Court Chamber finds that, when considering alleged factual errors of the Trial Chamber in the context of an appeal, it is, as a rule, limited to the evidence that was "put before the [Trial] Chamber" in terms of Internal Rule 87(2). In this regard, the Supreme Court Chamber underlines that not every item that is placed on the case file of a given case is automatically "put before the [Trial] Chamber". Rather, as noted above, specific procedures in that regard have to be followed. For that reason, evidence that was not introduced into the trial in principle cannot be scrutinised in the context of an appeal. 21. An exception to this arises when the Supreme Court Chamber allows additional or new evidence on appeal, either under Internal Rule 108(7) or 104(1). This is indeed what has happened in relation to the three witnesses whom the Supreme Court Chamber decided to call in its Decision to Call Witnesses. Nevertheless, in principle and in keeping with the legal framework set out above, any documentary evidence that the parties wish to use in the course of their examination of the witnesses must either be part of the evidence that was put before the Trial Chamber in the course of the trial giving rise to the appeal or allowed on appeal under Internal Rules 108(7) or 104(1). Otherwise, the hearing of additional witnesses on appeal could be used as a springboard for the admission of additional items of evidence, even though such items may not meet the stringent criteria of Internal Rule 108(7) and 104(1). This is accepted by the Co-Prosecutors, NUON Chea and KHIEU Samphan;44 however, it does not apply to prior statements of the witnesses the Supreme Court Chamber has decided to call. Such prior statements are so closely linked to the witnesses' expected live testimony that no separate decision under Internal Rule 108(7) and 104(1) is required; in addition, to the extent that the witness was unavailable at trial, so were his or her statements. Therefore, generally speaking, prior statements of a witness - obtained in the context of the ECCC investigation or trial, or otherwise - may be used in the examination of that witness. 22. The Supreme Court Chamber disagrees with NUON Chea's argument that, in addition, any material that is accessible in the public domain can be used in the examination of Decision to Call Witnesses, para. 17. Co-Prosecutors' Objections, para. 3; NUON Chea's Objections, paras 4-6; KHIEU Samphlln's Objections, paras 20-21. 43 44 DECISION ON OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENT LISTS - FULL REASONS 9/40