01200851 E350/8 87. Furthermore, the Co-Prosecutors have on several occasions presented questions to witnesses based on notebooks or prisoner logbooks from security centres. l64 The Chamber considers that such documents containing the thoughts and perceptions of torturers are permissible, so long as they are not invoked to establish the truth of statements made by those subject to torture. For example, if it can be demonstrated that the people listed were later arrested or executed, it may serve as proof of reliance on this information by the Accused or others within the CPK structure. 165 5.5.3. Future Application of these principles 88. The Chamber recognises that in balancing the interests sought to be protected by Article 15, each proffered use of torture-tainted evidence must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Nonetheless, certain guidelines may create further certainty about the application of these principles. First, reading directly from a torture-tainted statement in court, regardless of the intent of doing so, leads to the impression that it is being used to establish the truth of the statement. Such use is therefore unlikely to be accepted by the Chamber. Second, confronting a witness with accusations laid forth in a torture-tainted confession is unfair to the witness and suggests that reliance is being place on the truth of the confession. 166 This use will not be permitted by the Chamber. FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE TRIAL CHAMBER FINDS that the exclusionary rule contained in Article 15 of the CAT is binding on all parties to these proceedings; FURTHER FINDS that the Cambodian Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits any weight being given to coerced statements in the Chamber's factual findings at the judgement phase; DETERMINES that Article 15 of the CAT does not extend to evidence obtained through cruel, inhuman, and degrading conduct or to evidence derived from torture-tainted evidence; RULES that statements from security centres that the Co-Investigating Judges determined used torture fall within the scope of Article 15 of the CAT and may not therefore be invoked in these proceedings unless it is established, on a case-by-case basis, that an individual 164 T. 27 April 2015, pp. 9-10, 25-26 (Assistant Co-Prosecutor reference to DI57.7); T. 4 May 2015, pp. 47-48 (questioning of Khoem Boeun Assistant Co-Prosecutor reference to E312048); T. 18 May 2015, pp. 19-21 (OCP reference to Krang Ta Chan notebook (DI57.13, E3/5860), noting biographical information of one man and naming individuals being identified as traitors, though not asking whether they were in fact traitors.) 165 OCIJ Order, para. 27. 166 Judge Fenz agrees with this result, however, maintains her dissent with regard to the interpretation of the exception in Article 15. Decision on Evidence Obtained through Torture, Public,S February 2016 33