01005669 Case File No. 002/19-09-2007/ECCC/TC E313 which 3,866 persons were admitted as Civil Parties, the Co-Investigating Judges charged the Accused for crimes against humanity, genocide, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and violations of the 1956 Penal Code. 6 On appeal, the Pre-Trial Chamber confirmed the extensive Closing Order, with some amendments, formally remitting the four Accused to trial on 13 January 2011.7 4. Following resolution of applications for release on bail and having received requests by the parties to hear a cumulative total of 1,054 witnesses and to tender approximately 7,600 documents, the Trial Chamber held a Trial Management Meeting on 5 April 2011 with a view to expeditiously commencing trial proceedings. An initial hearing took place between 27 and 30 June 2011 in order to provide early indications to the parties of priority witnesses, experts and Civil Parties for the earliest phases of Case 002.8 The Chamber also heard submissions on numerous preliminary objections to jurisdiction. Those considered as constituting a barrier to the commencement of trial were decided over the months that followed.9 In particular, having decided that it was not validly seised with the offences in the 1956 Penal Code in the dispositive part of the Closing Order in Case 002, and that trial in relation to these domestic crimes cannot proceed, the Trial Chamber granted IENG Sary’s motion to strike out that part 6 Closing Order (OCIJ), D427, 15 September 2010 (“Closing Order”), para. 1613. Decision on IENG Thirith and NUON Chea’s Appeal against the Closing Order (PTC), D427/2/12, 13 January 2011, p. 6; Decision on KHIEU Samphan’s Appeal against the Closing Order (PTC), D427/4/14, 13 January 2011, p. 4; Decision on IENG Sary’s Appeal against the Closing Order (PTC), D427/1/26, 13 January 2011, pp. 4-5. The Pre-Trial Chamber amended the Closing Order to require a nexus between crimes against humanity and an armed conflict and affirmed that rape may be categorised as another inhumane act. The Trial Chamber later rejected the nexus requirement (Decision on Co-Prosecutors’ Request to Exclude Armed Conflict Nexus Requirement from the Definition of Crimes against Humanity, E95/8, 26 October 2011, para. 33). 8 Direction to the Parties (In Advance of Discussion at Initial Hearing of Provisional List of Witnesses, Experts and Civil Parties) (TC), E108, 29 June 2011. 9 Decision on NUON Chea’s Preliminary Objection alleging the Unconstitutional Character of the ECCC Internal Rules, E51/14, 8 August 2011; Decision on NUON Chea motions regarding fairness of judicial investigations (E51/3, E82, E88 and E92), E116, 9 September 2011; Decision on the Applicability of Joint Criminal Enterprise, E100/6, 12 September 2011; Decision on IENG Sary’s Rule 89 Preliminary Objection (ne bis in idem and Amnesty and Pardon), E51/15, 3 November 2011. Other submissions, while described as preliminary objections by the parties, were instead considered by the Chamber as more appropriate for resolution in the judgement or deferred to future trials in Case 002 insofar as they concerned matters beyond the scope of Case 002/01 (Response to Issues Raised by Parties in Advance of Trial and Scheduling of Informal Meeting with Senior Legal Officer on 18 November 2011 (TC), E141, 17 November 2011). 7 Case 002/01, Judgement, 7 August 2014 - Public 2