01200839 E350/8 obliterated.,,107 In practice, the Supreme Court Chamber does not apply Article 321 to the documents proposed for its hearing but examines the issues primarily through the lens of Article 15 of the CAT as the parties' arguments are centred on that provision. 108 54. The Trial Chamber notes that Article 321 of the CCCP must be read as a whole and in its context which encompasses both rules on admissibility and the evaluation of evidence. Article 321(1) provides that "Unless it is provided otherwise by law, all evidence is admissible". The same article explictly provides only one exception from this general rule (i.e. Article 321(4) communications between accused and lawyer). The third paragraph of Article 321 doesn't prohibit the admission of declarations made under physical and mental coercion but deals with evaluation of evidence and clarifies that such statements have no evidentiary value, thereby implying that this part of the provision comes into effect at the evidence assessment phase. Since Cambodian procural law does not deal with the issue of admissibility of evidence obtained through coercion and/or ill treatment, the Chamber seeks guidance in procedural rules established at the intemationallevel. l09 55. The Chamber notes that Article 15 of the CAT does not require by its plain terms the exclusion of evidence obtained through ill-treatment. llo Statements made as a result of illtreatment were encompassed by an exclusionary rule in the 1975 General Assembly Declaration that preceded the CAT,lll but reference to ill-treatment was omitted from Article 15 during the negotiation of the 1984 treaty. I 12 The notions of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment are not defined in the CAT. SCC Decision, para. 37. SCC Decision, para. 38. 109 ECCC Agreement, Article 12(1); ECCC Law, Article 23 new. 110 The Chamber notes that "ill-treatment" is accepted shorthand for "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment." See UN Special Rapporteur 2014 Report, para. 17; See also, UN Doc. CAT/C/GC/2, Committee Against Torture, General Comment No.2, 24 January 2008 ("General Comment 2"), para. 3; There are two differences between torture and other ill-treatment. It is generally considered that there is a difference in the intensity of the suffering inflicted with torture at the highest end of the spectrum and degrading treatment at the lowest. See Ireland v. United Kingdom, Judgement, ECtHR Plenary, Application no. 5310/71,18 January 1978, para. 167; Gafgen v. Germany, Judgement, ECtHR Grand Chamber, Application no. 22978/05, 1 June 2010 ("Gafgen v. Germany"), paras 88-90. Torture is also unique in that it requires that the mistreatment be inflicted for a particular purpose (i.e. to obtain information, to punish, to coerce or for any other reason based on discrimination). See j/han v. Turkey, Judgement, ECtHR, Application no. 22277/93, 27 June 2000, para. 85; UNCAT, Article 1(1). III UN Doc. 3452 (XXX), UN General Assembly Resolution - Declaration on the protection of all persons from being subjected to torture and other cruel inhuman or degrading treatment, 9 December 1975, Article 12 ("Any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment may not be invoked as evidence against the person concerned or against any other person in any proceedings." (emphasis added)). 112 UN Doc. E/CNAIl285, UN Economic and Social Council, 34th session, 23 January 1978 ("Swedish Draft"); Herman Burgers and Hans Danelius, The United Nations Convention against Torture - A Handbook on the 107 !O8 Decision on Evidence Obtained through Torture, Public, 5 February 2016 21