01200829 E350/8 in order to ascertain whether Cambodian law is consistent with relevant international standards, particularly those set forth in the CAT. n 25. The prohibition against torture contained in the CAT/ 3 by nature of its widespread acceptance by the international community, is recognised as a peremptory norm of international law from which States cannot derogate (jus cogens).74 By acceding to the Convention, Cambodia has indicated its intent to be bound by the provisions of the CAT, including Article 15. Human rights courts have held that Article 15, as part of the strictures of the CAT and a corpus of general and treaty rules proscribing torture, is itself a peremptory norm ofinternationallaw. 75 Cambodia for the Prosecution of Crimes Committed during the Period of Democratic Kampuchea, 10 August 2001 with inclusion of amendments as promulgated on 27 October 2004 (NSIRKM/1004/006) ("ECCC Law"), Article 23 new. 72 The Supreme Court Chamber held that Article 15 of the CAT is directly applicable without the need for implementing legislation and is therefore part of Cambodian law. See SCC Decision, paras 34-35. Regardless of the route taken, both this decision and the SCC decision consider Article 15 as the basis for their respective decisions. See SCC Decision para. 38. 73 For purposes of determining whether the Chamber will permit the invocation of torture-tainted evidence in this trial, the Chamber applies the definition of torture as contained in the 1984 CAT as the Chamber seeks to preserve the integrity of the proceedings and not to determine whether the Accused were on notice of the definition of the crime of torture at the time of the alleged offences. Cf KAING Guek Eav alias Duch, Case 001l18-07-2007IECCC/SC, Appeal Judgement, F28, 3 February 2012, para. 205; Pursuant to Article 1 of the CAT, torture means "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions." 74 Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), ICJ, Judgement, 20 July 2012, (ICJ Reports 2012), para. 99; Prosecutor v. Furundiija, ICTY Trial Chamber, IT-95-1711-T, Judgement, 10 December 1998 ("Prosecutor v. Furundiija"), paras 144-157, ("Because of the importance of the values it protects, this principle has evolved into a peremptory norm or jus cogens, that is, a norm that enjoys a higher rank in the international hierarchy than treaty law and even "ordinary" customary rules"); A and Others, House of Lords, [2005] UKHL 71, Lord Bingham (quoting Montgomery v. H M Advocate, Coulter v. H M Advocate [2003] 1 AC 641), para. 33; Case 001 Trial Judgement, paras 352-353; See also, UN Doc. 18232, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, entered into force Jan. 27, 1980 ("Vienna Convention"), Articles 53, 64 (defining jus cogens); SCC Decision, para. 40. 75 Othman (Abu Qatada) v. United Kingdom, Judgment, ECtHR, Application No. 8139/09, 17 January 2012 ("Othman (Abu Qatada) v. United Kingdom"), para. 266 ("Few international norms relating to the right to a trial are more fundamental than the exclusion of evidence obtained by torture. [ ... ] UNCAT reflects the clear will of the international community to further entrench the ius cogens prohibition on torture by taking a series of measures to eradicate torture and remove all incentive for its practice. Foremost among UNCAT's provisions is Article 15, which prohibits, in near absolute terms, the admission of torture evidence. It imposes a clear obligation on States."); Cabrera Garcia and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, IACtHR, Judgement, 26 November 2010 ("Cabrera Garcia and Montiel Flores v. Mexico"), para. 165 ("[T]he rule of excluding from judicial proceedings all evidence obtained under torture or through cruel or inhumane treatment (hereinafter "exclusionary rule") has been recognized by several international treaties and international bodies for the protection of human rights, which consider that the rule of exclusion is intrinsic to the prohibition of such acts."); UN Doc. AlHRC/25/60, Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, 10 April 2014 ("UN Special Rapporteur 2014 Report"), para. 22 ("As the prohibition against torture and other iIl- Decision on Evidence Obtained through Torture, Public, 5 February 2016 11