01200832 E350/8 bears the burden of establishing that the evidence is the result of torture. The Chamber considers these matters to be important in establishing a procedural framework to assess potentially torture-tainted documents in this case and therefore examines them below. 82 5.2.1. Standard of Proof 33. The Chamber is persuaded that the "real risk" standard of proof adopted by the European Court of Human Rights gives meaningful effect to the prohibition against the use of torturetainted evidence contained in Article 15. The ECtHR has held that it must be established that there is a real risk that such evidence was obtained through the use of torture for it to be excluded. It has held that it would be unfair to impose any higher burden of proof due "most importantly [ ... ] to the special difficulties in proving allegations of torture," including the fact that it is practiced in secret, and that the government apparatus charged with preventing it is often complicit in concealing it. 83 34. Many of the same considerations apply here. Although Democratic Kampuchea is no longer in a position to conceal evidence of torture,84 there is ample evidence to suggest that torture was practiced in secret from 1975-1979. Further considering the many decades that have passed since the evidence in question was obtained, it becomes increasingly difficult to establish whether any particular piece of evidence was obtained through torture. Due to these difficulties, the Chamber considers that applying any higher standard to "establish" that statements are tainted by torture would substantially increase the danger that such evidence would be invoked at trial and damage the integrity of the proceedings. 85 35. The Chamber will therefore consider evidence on a case-by-case basis to determine whether there is a real risk that such was obtained through torture. 86 5.2.2. Burden of Proof 36. Pursuant to the ECCC legal framework, while any party may object to the use of evidence he or she alleges to have been improperly obtained, the initial assessment of whether Cf OCB Order, para. 16. Othman (Abu Qatada) v. United Kingdom, para. 276; EI Haski v. Belgium, paras 86, 88; UN Special Rapporteur 2014 Report, para. 31. 84 OCB Order, para. 17 (noting Internal Rule 21 (1) involves statements obtained by the organs of the ECCC and not to those obtained by officials of the Communist Party of Kampuchea more than 30 years ago.) 85 R v. Oickle, 2000 SCC 38,66, Supreme Court of Canada (Case No. 26535); A and Others, House of Lords, [2005] UKHL 71 ("A and Others"), para. 39 (quoting Rome Statute, Article 69(7)). 86 See also, SCC Decision, paras 56-57. 82 83 Decision on Evidence Obtained through Torture, Public, 5 February 2016 14