01005696 Case File No. 002/19-09-2007/ECCC/TC E313 54. The Chamber considers that all parties were able to propose those witnesses they deemed most important to their case and, where those witnesses were not called, to put before the Chamber other evidence they considered to be exculpatory or conducive to ascertaining the truth, including witness statements. Pursuant to Internal Rule 84(4), the parties may appeal decisions concerning the summonsing of witnesses, experts and Civil Parties only at the same time as the final appeal from the judgement.141 2.4.7. Ability of the Defence to Place the Crimes in their Context 55. NUON Chea argues that limitations on the hearing of evidence concerning the historical context of the crimes hindered his ability to mount a full and effective Defence. In particular, he submits that historical topics including the American bombing of Cambodia between 1969 and 1973, living conditions in Cambodia prior to 1975 and the post-1979 political context (insofar as it relates to the collection of evidence and the role Vietnam played in recording the history of the CPK “to suit its political agenda”) should have been included in order to permit the Chamber to assess the context of his actions. He also submits that the Co-Prosecutors were permitted to adduce evidence of the historical context, while he was not, thus violating the principle of equality of arms.142 56. Where an accused argues that his fair trial rights were violated by limitations on his ability to adduce evidence concerning the historical context of the crimes, he must demonstrate concrete prejudice, namely how it would impact on his guilt or innocence.143 141 See Final Decision on Witnesses, Experts and Civil Parties to be Heard in Case 002/01, 7 August 2014, Section 3.2.8, Separate Opinion of Judges NIL Nonn, YA Sokhan and YOU Ottara and Final Decision on Witnesses, Experts and Civil Parties to be Heard in Case 002/01, 7 August 2014, Section 3.2.8, Separate Opinion of Judges Silvia CARTWRIGHT and Jean-Marc LAVERGNE. 142 NUON Chea’s Closing Submissions in Case 002/01, E295/6/3, 26 September 2013, paras 51-55, 57-59, 91;T. 22 October 2013 (NUON Chea Defence Closing Statement), pp. 21-25, 40-42; See also, Immediate Appeal against Second Severance Order and Response to Co-Prosecutors’ Appeal against Same, E284/4/1, 27 May 2013, paras 13-19; Motion in Support of ‘IENG Sary’s Motion to Add New Trial Topics to the Trial Schedule’ and Request to Add Additional Topics, E89/1, 25 May 2011, paras 2, 8-9; Request to Hear Defence Witnesses and to Take Other Procedural Measures in Order to Properly Assess Historical Context, E182, 16 March 2011, paras 14-29. 143 Nahimana et al. Appeal Judgement, paras 249-250. Case 002/01, Judgement, 7 August 2014 - Public 29