01200838 E350/8 registration at the security centre, or at the beginning of a document containing a confession (notably on its cover page), but not in the confession itself. 103 Further, the Chamber reaffirms its consistent practice of allowing reference to annotations made on statements containing confessions by the interrogators or any other superiors, notably when indicating an action to take or already taken as they do not form part of the "statement" as it appears in Article 15. 104 50. Apart from this type of information, the Defence teams raise two ways in which the exclusionary rule could be interpreted to encompass evidence that is not inherently torture tainted, namely evidence obtained through either cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment ("illtreatment") or coercion not reaching the threshold of torture and evidence derived from torture-tainted evidence. The Chamber addresses each of these points below. 5.4.1. Evidence Obtained through Coercion or Ill-treatment 51. Although Article 38 of the Cambodian Constitution and Article 321 of the CCCP both address evidence obtained through coercion - which may be considered conduct not meeting the threshold of torture - Cambodian law does not specifically address whether evidence obtained by coercion is subject to the exclusionary rule. 52. By its plain terms, Article 38 of the Cambodian Constitution categorically prohibits reliance on confessions obtained under coercion as evidence of guilt, but is limited in application to statements made by the accused, thereby protecting his or her fundamental right against self-incrimination. 105 The statements at issue here are not those of the Accused. The more relevant provision is therefore Article 321 of the CCCP which provides that any "Declaration given under physical or mental coercion shall have no evidentiary value." 53. According to the Supreme Court Chamber, Article 321 of the CCCP implements Article 15 of the CAT in the area of criminal procedure in Cambodia and creates an exclusionary rule for evidence obtained through coercion (falling short of torture ).106 It considers that although the plain language of Article 321 contains no exception for statements "against a person accused of torture" as in Article 15 of the CAT, the exception in Article 15 "is not tacitly 103 The Supreme Court Chamber notes that whether these facts were obtained by torture is a matter of proof. See SCC Decision, para. 68. 104 SCC Decision, para. 68. 105 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 14(g); Constitution of the Kingdom of Cambodia, Articles 31, 33, 38. 106 SCC Decision, paras. 31, 35-37. Decision on Evidence Obtained through Torture, Public, 5 February 2016 20