01185931 002/19-09-2007-ECCC/SC Doc No. F26/12 failing to kill LON Nol officers, or further evidence that killing LON Nol officers was within the enemy's policy of the regime. 164 In other words, they argue that the exception stipulated in the second sentence of Article 15 of the CAT, which permits use of statements derived from torture "as evidence that the statement was made", implies that such statements may be used for any purpose other than to prove the truth of its contents. 165 The Co-Prosecutors add that the exclusionary rule only serves its deterrent purpose where the party seeking to use the torture-derived statement is part of the perpetrator's regime, and that preventing a court or prosecutors from using such statements for purposes unrelated to the truth of their contents would have the unreasonable and unintended effect of rewarding torturers by shielding them from liability. 166 67. The Supreme Court Chamber recalls that Case 002/01 does not involve charges of torture. Accordingly, the sole exception in Article 15 of the CAT permitting use of a statement derived from torture "against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made" does not apply. Transferring their arguments raised in Case 002/02 to the present case, the Co-Prosecutors essentially argue the doctrine of necessity - notably, the exigencies of effective prosecution - in order to broaden the use of statements obtained through torture beyond the plain language of Article 15 of the CAT. For the reasons indicated above at paragraphs at 40-47, the exclusionary rule does not lend itself to accommodating the Co-Prosecutors' interpretation. The object and purpose of Article 15 of the CAT requires broad exclusion of any information obtained through torture, and the exception to this rule, by its nature, is to be interpreted narrowly. Specifically, the Supreme Court Chamber concurs with the jurisprudence cited above,167 which holds that necessities of prosecution do not justify the use of statements obtained through torture, even where the party moving to use the statements is not responsible for the torture. 68. In accordance with the notion of "statements" as interpreted above, Article 15 of the CAT excludes the admission of any information resulting from the torture of the victim, no matter whether adduced directly, through a witness, or in recorded form. Article 15 of the CAT does not, however, mandate the sweeping exclusion of the whole documentation surrounding the interrogation of the torture victim. When an interrogation record contains information originating from persons other than the torture victim, for instance from the 164 165 166 167 Co-Prosecutors' Objections, para. 5. Co-Prosecutors' Case 002/02 Submissions, para. 7. Co-Prosecutors' Case 002/02 Submissions, para. 6. Supra paras 42-46. DECISION ON OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENT LISTS - FULL REASONS 36/40