01200850 E350/8 interest as it may be relevant to the communication structure within the regime. This much is conceded by the Co-Prosecutors. I57 Insofar as the torture-tainted statement is not put to the witness as an assertion of fact and the question focuses instead on the knowledge of the witness, the Chamber considers that this form of question is permissible. ls8 85. This is to be contrasted with the question the Chamber did not permit counsel for NUON Chea to put to Witness Khoem Boeun. Counsel sought to confront the witness with the confession of CHOU Chet to confirm or deny facts contained within his S-21 confession (i.e. whether Saom was in fact a very oppressive and radical person).159 This question does not touch on the knowledge of the witness. The question seeks to confront the witness where she has previously stated that she had no particular recollection of Saom. 160 It therefore invokes torture-tainted evidence for the truth of the matter asserted and is impermissible. 161 86. The Co-Prosecutors and the NUON Chea Defence both attempted to ask questions based on the S-21 Confession of SUONG (E3/1892). The NUON Chea Defence stated that a note at the top of the confession in the English version indicates that the confession was written before he was tortured. The Chamber ruled that the contents of the confession should not be read out as it was not clear under exactly what conditions this confession was obtained. 162 The Chamber considers that a note of questionable provenance at the top of only the English version of this document, rather than the original Khmer, does not rebut the presumption of a real risk that the confession was obtained under torture. As a torture-tainted document, its uses must be limited to those described above. 163 157 T. 24 April 2015, p. 32 ("[ ... J I think there is a legitimate question that can be made -- certainly not for the truth of the matter. [ ... J What would be relevant would be to know whether the fact he had been implicated was communicated to him by Ke Pauk or someone else. So, to the extent, that is the question -- whether the -- this confession was then used in the regime and communicated to people I think would be appropriate. To use it for the truth of the matter is entirely barred.") 158 If the line of questioning were to tum to an assertion that the witness was in fact part of a network with a plan to rebel against the CPK leadership, the question would then rely upon the truth of the torture-tainted confession. Such a use is not permissible. 159 T. 5 May 2015, p. 32 ("I would like to confront her with the statement of Chou Chet that Saom was a very oppressive and radical person, and my question would be whether she would agree with this, yes or noT') 160 T.5 May 2015, pp. 29-30. 161 See SCC Decision, para. 47 ("the effect of the exclusionary rule is that statements falling under it may not be used to prove the truth of its content or even to imply that it might be truthful, for instance by confronting a witness with it.") 162 T. 17 lime 20 IS, pp. 80-81. 163 Judge Fenz maintains her dissent as to the interpretation of the exception in Article 15. Decision on Evidence Obtained through Torture, Public,S February 2016 32