01005707 Case File No. 002/19-09-2007/ECCC/TC E313 conclusion of the hearing.188 In any event, the Co-Prosecutors and Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyers were willing to provide KHIEU Samphan with lists of questions.189 Further, the Chamber’s refusal to place time limits on the questioning of the Accused was reasonable and intended to accommodate the willingness and ability of KHIEU Samphan to continue at any given point. Finally, the Chamber notes that the Accused and his counsel both indicated that, even if all Defence requests concerning the manner and procedure for the Accused’s questioning were granted, KHIEU Samphan still would not have responded to questioning on the basis that his rights were violated throughout the proceedings.190 In this regard, the Chamber affirms its findings above, and throughout the proceedings, that both Accused’s fair trial rights were respected over the course of the trial. 78. NUON Chea and KHIEU Samphan exercised their right not to give evidence when the opportunity was provided.191 The Accused had various opportunities throughout the hearing to make statements and respond to questions. On various occasions they availed themselves of these opportunities.192 Pursuant to Internal Rule 94(3), the Accused also had a final opportunity to make statements on 31 October 2013. They took advantage of this opportunity.193 The Chamber therefore finds that there was no infringement of the Accused’s right to make statements or respond to questions as provided in Internal Rules 81(6), 89bis, 90, 91bis and 94.194 188 Krajišnik Appeal Judgement, para. 370 (considering the indictment, pre-trial brief, witness and evidence lists, and his presence during trial, the Chamber found that the accused was “well-aware of the context of the Prosecution’s questions and of the Prosecution’s case against him” when he testified in his own defence). 189 T. 9 July 2013, pp. 32-39; Co-Prosecutors’ Response to KHIEU Samphan’s Withdrawal from Testifying and a Request for Adverse Inferences to be Drawn, E288/4/1, 16 July 2013, para. 10. 190 T. 9 July 2013, pp. 41-47. 191 Blagojević and Jokić Appeal Judgement, para. 28 (where an accused’s own choices interfere with his right to give evidence, he cannot claim a violation of his fair trial rights). 192 See Section 2: Preliminary Issues, 2.3.4.2 (on sources of evidence). 193 T. 31 October 2013, pp. 68-73; T. 31 October 2013, pp. 1-34. 194 The Chamber notes that insofar as these rules provide the other parties the right to question an accused, they confer on an accused a corresponding right to respond, if he/she intends to do so, emanating from his/her rights to remain silent, to adversarial debate and to present a defence. Case 002/01, Judgement, 7 August 2014 - Public 40