01200827 E350/8 where appropriate, constitute evidence that they were made under torture. They are not admitted for the truth of their contents. ,,59 In further application of this ruling, in its Case 001 judgement, the Chamber made reference to a document produced by interrogators at S-21 which justified the arrest of detainees based upon their confessions and compiled information to investigate and eventually arrest others. 6o Moreover, in assessing the role of the Accused Kaing Guek Eav in arrests, the Chamber relied on several letters sent by SOU Met (the commander of Division 502) to the Accused, concerning the arrest of individuals identified as belonging to a network in S-21 confessions. 61 The Chamber made no reliance on the truth of the confessions. 21. In Case 002/01, the Chamber issued an oral ruling on 26 January 2012, reiterating its holding that evidence obtained through torture has limited uses and referring the parties to its prior decisions on the issue in Case 001. 62 The Chamber revisited the issue several times through the case, recalling that it was bound by the CAT and that it would not permit the parties to refer to the content of any confessions extracted by torture, although it would allow parties to refer to annotations or the dates on confessions. 63 The Chamber further clarified that: "confessions obtained contrary to the provisions of the Convention Against Torture cannot be used as evidence or for the basis for questioning. Therefore, the Chamber will remind the parties that it will permit no questions on the content of the confession nor will it use such information in its verdict.,,64 During the questioning of Duch, who appeared as a witness, the Chamber disallowed a question as to whether Pang, a cadre who was later imprisoned at S-21, had been incriminated in other confessions because the question was based on confessions extracted by torture. 65 Finally, in the Case 002/01 Judgement, the 59 Decision on Parties Requests to Put Certain Materials before the Chamber Pursuant to Internal Rule 87(2), E176 (Case 001), 28 October 2009, para. 8. 60 KAING Guek Eav alias Duch, Case 001118-07-2007IECCC/TC, Judgement, E188, 26 July 2010 ("Case 001 Trial Judgement"), para. 254 (citing Statistics list ofSantebal S-21, E3/426). 61 KAING Guek Eav alias Duch, Case 001118-07-2007IECCC/TC, Judgement, E188, 26 July 2010 ("Case 001 Trial Judgement"), para. 170 (citing Case 001 documents: "Sou Met's letter to Duch - 2 June 1977", E3/40; "Sou Met's letter to Duch - I April 1977", E3121O; "Sou Met's letter to Duch - 30 May 1977", E3/211; "Sou Met's letter to Duch - I June 1977", E3/212; "Sou Met's letter to Duch - 28 July 1977", E3/213; "Sou Met's letter to Duch - 10 August 1977", E3/214; "Sou Met's letter to Duch - 3 October 1977", E3/215; "Sou Met's letter to Duch - 4 October 1977", E3/216). 62 T. 26 January 2012, p. 88; see also, Decision on Objections to Documents Proposed to be .Put Before the Chamber on the Co-Prosecutors' Annexes A1-A5 and to Documents Cited in Paragraphs of the Closing Order Relevant to the First Two Trial Segments of Case 00211, E185, 9 April 2012, para. 21(9). 63 T. 31 July 2012, p. 108; See also, T. 27 April 2015, p. 27 (Judge Lavergne: "To the extent that the objective for which the notes on Kraing Ta Chan are used to establish the identity of persons detained at the security centre, the Chamber is of the view that there is no objection to such use.") 64 T.3 October 2012, p. 74 (emphasis added). 65 T. 10 April 2012, p. 12. Decision on Evidence Obtained through Torture, Public, 5 February 2016 9