01200835 E350/8 Prosecutors. 93 Such a proposal runs contrary to the plain language of Article 15, which provides that torture-tainted evidence "shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings." The language of the Article is not limited to the judgement phase but applies with equal force to the presentation of evidence and the questioning of witnesses during the trial. Furthermore, if the Chamber were to allow the parties to invoke possibly torture-tainted evidence throughout this trial, the damage to the integrity of the proceedings will have been done. Removing from consideration, torture-tainted evidence at the judgement phase cannot remedy that damage. For the parties and the public will have seen the product of torture relied on for its truth, normalising the acquisition and invocation of that evidence at trial and diverting the Chamber's inquiry into the ascertainment of the truth. 5.3.2. Right to Present Exculpatory Evidence 42. The Chamber next considers the NUON Chea Defence submission that the exclusionary rule applies only to state authorities (the Co-Prosecutors in this case) and cannot therefore be interpreted to apply to the Defence, particularly where it seeks to invoke torture-tainted evidence it asserts is exculpatory.94 43. Contrary to the Defence submission, the Chamber considers that the CAT is not limited in application to state authorities. The ordinary meaning of Article 15 suggests that it has general application and provides no indication that it should be read to be limited in this way. The drafters of the Convention have made an explicit exception for a narrow personal and substantive scope to the exclusionary rule. This very narrow exception concerns proceedings against persons accused of torture. It is meant to avoid a reading of the exclusionary rule that would have the effect of preventing the prosecution of those liable for acts of torture. The language of the rule is not limited to the prosecutor, and reading such a limitation into the Article is unjustified. 44. In addition, the exclusionary rule must be seen as complementary to a corpus of general and treaty rules proscribing torture. Because of the importance of the values it protects, the prohibition of torture in international law constitutes a clear peremptory norm. 95 International 93 Co-Prosecutors' Submissions, para. 22 ("The Co-Prosecutors submit that the only practical and efficient manner to deal with this evidence is for the Chamber to wait to the completion of all evidence in the case [ ... ]"). 94 NUON Chea Defence's Submissions, para. 17. 95 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."); Cabrera Garcia and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, para. 165. Decision on Evidence Obtained through Torture, Public, 5 February 2016 17