01200834 E350/8 relevant circumstances, the Chamber will determine whether there IS a real risk that the evidence was obtained through torture. 5.2.4. Final Assessment of Evidence of Torture 39. Unlike other cases where the real-risk standard has been applied, the Accused in this case are charged with the crime of torture, and the Chamber must ultimately determine by a different, higher standard of proof whether torture occurred.92 Therefore, the Chamber's preliminary determination of whether there is a real risk that evidence was obtained by torture, may differ from its final conclusion based on the standard for conviction on the allegations of torture, considering the totality of evidence available at the judgement phase. Where it is established that there is prejudice to any party as a result of this unique situation, it may be necessary to reopen the hearing of evidence to allow additional questions or evidence which had been initially prohibited. 5.3. Fair Trial Considerations 5.3.1. Presumption of Innocence 40. The Chamber emphasises that the right of the Accused to be presumed innocent precludes a final determination on the Accused's culpability for torture until all evidence is adduced and the Chamber delivers its judgement. The Chamber considers that a preliminary finding that a real risk exists that torture was used, based on a prima facie assessment of the evidence at the time of the decision, does not impinge upon this right as it does not pronounce on either the guilt of the Accused or the role they may have played in obtaining the statement at issue. It is a preliminary evidentiary ruling necessary to effectuate the obligatory provisions of the CAT. 41. Even if more practical or efficient, the Chamber cannot defer until a determination of the merits its assessment of which documents were obtained by torture, as proposed by the Co- See Case 002/01 Judgement, para. 22 ("The Accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty. The CoProsecutors bear the burden of proof. In order to convict, the Chamber must be convinced of an accused's guilt "beyond reasonable doubt". In order to resolve any discrepancy between the different language versions of Internal Rule 87(1) that reflect the common law "beyond reasonable doubt" standard and the civil law concept of "intime conviction", the Chamber has adopted a common approach that evaluates the sufficiency of the evidence. Upon a reasoned assessment of the evidence, the Chamber interprets any doubt as to guilt in the Accused's favour.") 92 Decision on Evidence Obtained through Torture, Public, 5 February 2016 16