002/19-09-2007-ECCC-OCIJ-PTC ranking officials cannot evade criminal liability by relying on “superior orders” – as the UNCAT (which Cambodia acceded to in October 1992) clearly states “[a]n order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture”.7 12. Specifically, individuals have been accused and convicted of crimes, indeed of torture, without the accusation involving any physical participation in the commission of the acts, in both national8 and international courts. For instance, as early as the aftermath of World War II, “[a]ll the defendants” at the Trials of the Major war Criminals at Nuremburg were accused, and most convicted, of having “participated as leaders, organizers, instigators, or accomplices in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit, or which involved the commission of, Crimes against Peace, War Crimes, and Crimes against Humanity,” (under Article 6 of the Nuremburg Charter) rather than being accused of physically, or directly, engaging in such crimes. The crimes included “ill-treatment” (which includes torture as now defined).9 13. Therefore, under Article 15 of the UNCAT, a statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture may be invoked against any person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made, and this includes all levels of participation, from those accused of physically committing the act of torture to those otherwise bearing individual criminal responsibility for that act. II. Files Containing ‘Confessions’ Obtained by Torture May Include Admissible Material 14. In view of Article 15’s plain language and the requirement, under general international law, to interpret it in accordance with the natural, or ordinary, meaning of its words, as explained above, the inadmissibility rule is limited to the statement obtained by torture and does not extend automatically to all material contained in files within which the statement is found, to documents such as registration forms, or even to annotations written be fully investigated through competent, independent and impartial prosecutorial and judicial authorities.” Committee against Torture, Gen. Comm. No. 2: Implementation of art. 2 by States parties UN Doc. CAT/C/GC/2, 24 Jan. 08, para. 26. 7 Article 2(3) of the UNCAT. 8 See e.g., R. v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate And Others, Ex Parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 3) [2000] 1 AC 147 (former military commander and president accused of torture inflicted by subordinates); Vargas Aignasse Guillermo S/Secuestro y Decaparición".- Expte. V - 03/08, Cámara del Tribunal Oral en lo Criminal Federal de Tucumán (Argentina), decision of 28 Aug. 2008 (former army generals convicted inter alia of torture by their troops). 9 See Indictment, Trial of The Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal, 14 Nov. 1945 -1 October 1946, Nuremberg, Germany, 1947, Vol. 1, p. 29. See also Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, judgment of 2 Sept. 1998 (mayor accused and convicted inter alia of rape, including as torture, committed by militias); Prosecutor v. Anto Furundzija, ICTY Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, ICTY Trial Chamber II, Judgement of 10 Dec. 1998 (military police commander convicted inter alia of torture/rape of a woman inflicted by his subordinates). Amicus Curie Application (AI, ICJ, REDRESS) 5/15