01200848 E350/8 Likewise, where the torture-tainted statements of third parties implicating the Accused are put forward as evidence of guilt, the accused have few avenues to challenge that evidence. The unreliability of these statements precludes judicial consideration of the statements for their truth. As noted above, however, the Chamber considers that in the circumstances presented here, the use of torture-tainted statements for the limited purpose of determining what action resulted based on the fact that a statement was made, does not violate the due process or fair trial rights of the Accused. 149 78. The Chamber considers that the above reading of Article 15 adequately protects the object and purpose of the exclusionary rule while at that same time permitting the prosecution of those charged with torture. The Chamber now considers the practical application of these principles to the evidence in this case. 5.5.1. Evidence in Case 002102 for which there exists a real risk that it was obtained under torture 79. The Chamber recalls its findings in the Case 001 Judgement, confirmed on appeal, that torture was used to obtain confessions at S-21, that where prisoners did not give satisfactory confessions more torture was ordered, and that much of the information contained in the confessions was fabricated. 150 While res judicata is not applicable to the Case 001 Judgement [mdings with regard to the Accused in this case because they were not parties to the Case 001 proceedings, the Chamber considers that these findings demonstrate a real risk that any confessions obtained at S-21 were the result of torture. In further relation to security centres, the Co-Investigating Judges have considered, in their assessment of the existence of sufficient evidence to remit Case 002 to the Trial Chamber that torture was used at other security centres to obtain confessions and "to identify members of their 'network' for arrest".151 Consequently, the Chamber is satisfied that a real risk exists that torture was used at S-21 and other security centres to obtain confessions. The Chamber will not permit the invocation of 149 The Supreme Court Chamber states that it concurs with the judicial authorities that hold that the necessities of prosecution do not justify the use of statements obtained through torture. See SCC Decision para. 67. It appears to have limited its analysis to the general exclusionary rule in Article 15 and not to have interpreted the exception contained in Article 15. In addition, none of the authorities cited by the Supreme Court Chamber involved a prosecution of the Accused on charges of torture to which the exception to Article 15 explicitly applies. 150 Case 001 Judgement, paras 176, 177, 179. 151 Closing Order, paras 1408, 1411. Decision on Evidence Obtained through Torture, Public,S February 2016 30