01005705 Case File No. 002/19-09-2007/ECCC/TC E313 72. Between the first day of Opening Statements on 21 November 2011 and the first day of Closing Statements on 16 October 2013, there were 480 days on which the Chamber did not sit (including weekends, national holidays, recesses and various adjournments, for example those resulting from the health of the Accused). The Accused were on notice from 3 August 2012 that they were expected to allocate facilities and resources, including non-sitting days, during the trial in preparing Closing Briefs. Finally, the Chamber extended deadlines and adapted page limits and other facilities as circumstances required and in the interests of justice. Thus the Chamber does not consider that the Accused’s rights to adversarial debate or to present a defence were violated by the procedures set for closing submissions.182 2.4.9.5. 73. Conclusion The Accused fail to demonstrate how the various procedural rulings, alone or taken together, precluded a real opportunity for adversarial debate. The Chamber cannot be held accountable for the failure of the Accused or his counsel to use the various opportunities provided, in particular when the Chamber repeatedly attempted to accommodate their concerns by providing further time or opportunities to comply. Accordingly, the Chamber considers that the right of the Accused to adversarial debate was not infringed. 2.4.10. Right of the Accused to Make Statements and Respond to Questioning 74. KHIEU Samphan submits that the Chamber impeded his right to present a defence and comment on the evidence against him when it denied his requests to: receive lists of questions and documents to be used in his questioning; limit questioning to half-day sessions; and be provided three weeks to consult with his counsel prior to questioning. He also alleges prejudice arising from the failure of the Inadmissibility of the Co-Prosecutors’ Closing Brief (E295/7), E295/7/2, 14 October 2013, para.6 (noting that the KHIEU Samphan Defence in fact availed itself of this facility). 182 The ICTY Appeals Chamber considered that a deadline for closing briefs 11 days after the close of the hearing of evidence was not prejudicial to an accused’s rights insofar as there were numerous nonsitting days over the course of the trial and the parties had sufficient notice (one year) that they were expected to allocate resources in such a way as to allow for development of their brief over the course of the trial (Krajišnik Appeal Judgement, para. 94). Case 002/01, Judgement, 7 August 2014 - Public 38