Case 002: Ieng Sary

• Written Record of Interview of Witness (28 Aug 2012) (Providing the written transcript of the interview of Witness Norng Sophang)
• Order Refusing Ieng Sary’s Request for Annulment (D381 and D387)(3 Sept 2010) (Dismissing the request to seize the PTC for annulment).
• Ieng Sary’s Motion Against Direct Application of Customary International Law at the ECCC (22 July 2010) (Challenging the application of customary international law at the ECCC).
• Ieng Sary, OCIJ,  Inter-Office Memorandum Of The CIJs Concerning the Legal Representation of Civil Parties, D337/7  (28 June 2010) (providing reasons why legal representation has not yet been assigned to some civil parties)
• Ieng Sary’s Alternative Motion on the Limits of the Applicability of Crimes Against Humanity at the ECCC (23 June 2010) (Requesting specific limitations on the applicability of crimes against humanity).
• Ieng Sary, OCIJ, Order in Response to the Decision of the Pre-Trial Chamber on Co-Prosecutors’ Appeal Against the Co-Investigating Judges’ Order on Request to Place Additional Evidentiary Material on the Case File Which Assists in Proving the Charged Persons’ Knowledge of the Crimes, D365/3 (21 June 2010) (responding to a decision by the PTC and expanding the OCIJ’s reasons for a decision on the Co-Prosecutors’ request to place additional evidentiary material in Case File 2)
• Ieng Sary, OCIJ, Civil Parties, Capacity And Specialisation Of Civil Party Lawyer Group “Avocats Sans Frontiere France”, D337/6/1 (18 May 2010) (offering to represent those civil parties involved in the ECCC proceedings who have not yet obtained legal representation)
• Ieng Sary’s Motion Against the Application of Grave Breaches at the ECCC (7 May 2010) (Challenging the ECCC’s jurisdiction to apply a charge of grave breaches against the Accused).
• Ieng Sary, OCIJ,  Inter-Office Memorandum Of The CIJs Concerning the Civil Parties Lawyers Request for Extension of The Deadline For Filing Civil Parties’Supplementary Information, D337/6 (29 April 2010) (reversing the OCIJ’s previous decision and extending the deadline for civil parties to submit supplementary information to 30 June 2010)
• Ieng Sary’s Motion Against the Application of Crimes Against Humanity at the ECCC (13 Apr 2010) (Requesting the OCIJ to reject the application of crimes against humanity before the ECCC).
• Ieng Sary, OCIJ,  Inter-Office Memorandum Of The CIJs Regarding Civil Parties Lawyers Request for Extension of The Deadline For Filing Civil Parties’ Supplementary Information, D337/3 (9 April 2010) (denying Civil Party request to extend deadline)
• Ieng Sary, OCIJ, Civil Parties, Request for Extension of The Deadline For Filing Civil Parties’ Supplementary Information, D337/2 (31 March 2010) (requesting extension of deadline to file supplementary information for one month)
• Order on Ieng Sary’s Motion Against Application of Command Responsibility (19 Mar 2010) (Rejecting the motion against application of command responsibility).
• Ieng Sary, OCIJ, Response To Ieng Sary’s Lawyers Request For Information Concerning Complaints Made By Potential Witnesses, A363/1 (4 March 2010)
• Ieng Sary, OCIJ, Def., Request For Information Concerning Complaints Made By Potential Witnesses, A363 (1 March 2010)
• Ieng Sary, OCIJ, Order Issuing Warning Under Rule 38, D367 (25 February 2010)
• Ieng Sary, OCIJ, Pros., Request for the placement on Case File 002 of documents contained in Case File 001, D288, (23 December 2009)
• Ieng Sary, OCIJ, Order on Request for investigative action concerning Forced Marriages and Forced Sexual Relation, D268/2 (22 December 2009)
• Ieng Sary, OCIJ, Response to the “Request for Investigative Action”, concerning, Inter Alia, the Strategy of the Co-Investigating Judges in regard to the Judicial investigation, D171/5 (11 December 2009)
• Ieng Sary, OCIJ, Order on the Application at the ECCC of the Form of Liability Known as Joint Criminal Enterprise, D97/13 (8 December 2009)
• Civil Parties’ Request for Supplementary Investigations Regarding Genocide of the Khmer Krom & The Vietnamese (3 Dec 2009) (Requesting further investigation to draw attention to new evidence)
• Your Request for Investigative Action Concerning the Documentation of Centre of Cambodia (DC-Cam) (27 Nov 2009) (Informing the Co-Prosecutors of the continuous collection, analysis and review of documents at DC-Cam).
• Co-Prosecutors’ Request for Investigative Action Concerning the Documentation Centre of Cambodia [DC-Cam] (16 Nov 2009) (Requesting that the CIJs conduct additional investigative action).
• Ieng Sary, OCIJ, Order on extension of Provisional Detention, C22/8 (10 November 2009) (extending the provisional detention of Ieng Sary for an additional one year)
• Nuon Chea’s Fifteenth Request for Investigative Action; and Related Letters from Ieng Sary’s Lawyer Concerning Evidence Obtained from Torture (30 Oct 2009) (Stating that a full assessment of evidence cannot be conducted until the end of the investigation).
• Ieng Sary, OCIJ, Def., Reply to the civil parties’ response to IENG Sary’s application for sanctions against the Co-Prosecutors for alledgedly misleading the court regarding the law on joint criminal enterprise, D97/9/6 (25 September 2009)
• Ieng Sary, OCIJ, Civil Party (joint civil parties), Response to Ieng Sary’s Request for actions under internal rule 35 due to the Co-Prosecutors misleading the court in their Supplementary Observations on Joint Criminal Enterprise filed on 31 December 2008, D97/9/5 (6 August 2009)
• Ieng Sary, OCIJ, Pros., Response to Defense Request for Sanctions Against the OCP for Allegedly Misleading the OCIJ on the Issue of Joint Criminal Enterprise, D97/9/2 (16 July 2009)
• Ieng Sary, OCIJ, Def., Request for Sanctions Under Internal Rule 35 due to Co-Prosecutors Misleading Court in their Supplementary Observations on Joint Criminal Enterprise Filed 31 December 2008, D97/9 (29 June 2009) (alleging that the co-prosecutors failed to identify contrary precedent of which they were aware, and calling for sanctions)
• Ieng Sary, OCIJ, Order on Request for Investigative Action, 158/5 (3 April 2009) (denying joint defence request for investigation into corruption allegations against the tribunal on the grounds that OCIJ power to take any investigative action conducive to ascertaining the truth” is limited by their jursidiction, conferred by Article 2 of the 2004 ECCC Law, to bringing to trial senior leaders of Democratic Kampuchea and those most responsible for international crimes committed between 1975 and 1979; accordingly, extending judicial investigation to these corruption allegations would be an abuse of power)
• Ieng Sary, OCIJ, Motion to Join and Adopt Nuon Chea’s Eleventh Request for Investigative Action, D158/2 (27 March 2009)(joining Nuon Chea’s request for investigation of allegations of ongoing corruption at the ECCC)
• Ieng Sary, OCIJ, Order on Breach of Confidentiality of the Judicial Investigation, D138 (3 March 2009)(ordering counsel for the defense to remove confidential documents posted on a public website and threatening sanctions if further documents are posted)
• Ieng Sary, OCIJ, Press Statement regarding Order on Breach of Confidentiality of the Judicial Investigation (3 Mar. 2009)
  English French Khmer
• Ieng Sary, OCIJ, Def., Request for Information Regarding the Potential Existence of Conflict of Interest of OCIJ Investigator Stephen Herder, A252 (30 Jan 2009) (requesting information regarding Herder’s possible past employment as an intelligence agent)
• Ieng Sary, OCIJ, Pros., Motion to Submit New Evidence, E5/10 (28 Jan. 2009)
• Ieng Sary, OCIJ, Order on Access to Case File by Detainees, 127 (26 Jan. 2009)(granting detainees the right to access a limited number of case file documents in their cells, provided those documents fit in a lockable file cabinet to be provided each detainee)
• Ieng Sary, OCIJ, Order on Extension of Provisional Detention (10 Nov. 2008)(extending provisional detention for up to one year)
• Partial Transcript of Recorded Interview with Mr. Oeun Tan (9 Oct 2008) (Providing a partial transcript of the interview of Mr. Oeun Tan)
• Ieng Sary, OCIJ, Def., Request Concerning the Interview of Ieng Sary on his conditions of detention on 2 May 2008, A121 (24 June 2008) (requesting that two specified OCIJ investigators not be present at an interview with Ieng Sary)
• Ieng Sary, OCIJ, Order Concerning Translation Rights and Obligations of the Parties (20 June 2008)
• Ieng Sary, OCIJ, Letter Regarding Request for Information on “the apparent bias and potential existence of a conflict of interest concerning MM S.Herder and D.Boyle,” A121 (27 May 2008) (rejecting requests for information because there is no legal obligation to provide information relating to investigators, nor any process for disqualifying them)
• Ieng Sary, OCIJ, Def., Request for Information Concerning the Apparent Bias and Potential Existence of Conflict of Interest of Legal Officer David Boyle, A162 (4 March 2008)
• Ieng Sary, OCIJ, Letter Regarding Request for Information Regarding an Eventual Conflict of Interest, A121 (25 Jan 2008)(providing details of investigator Stephen Herder’s temporary assignment to the OCP and explaining that such assignments are commonplace in civil law systems, including the Cambodian system)
• Ieng Sary, OCIJ, Def., Request for Information Concerning Possible Conflict of Interest, A121 (10 Jan 2008) (asking whether investigator Stephen Herder was formerly employed by the OCP)
• Ieng Sary, OCIJ, Order of Provisional Detention (14 Nov. 2007)

Pleadings

• Ieng Sary, PTC, Ieng Sary’s Reply to the Joint Observations on Mr. Nuon Chea, Mr. Ieng Sary and Mrs. Ieng Thirith’s Appeals Against the Closing Order (4 Jan 2011) (Responding to the Civil Parties’ request to the PTC that they reject all appeals of the Case 2 Closing Order)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Ieng Sary’s Reply to the Combined Response by Advocats Sans Frontieres France Co-Lawyers for the Civil Parties to the Appeals by Ieng Sary, Ieng Thirith and Nuon Chea Against the Co-Investigating Judges’ Closing Order (13 Dec 2010) (responding to the Civil Parties’ submission regarding the OCIJ’s Closing Order and requesting amendments to it)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Joint Observations on Mr. Nuon Chea, Mr. Ieng Sary and Mrs. Ieng Thirith’s Appeals Against the Closing Order(29 Nov 2010) (Civil Parties’ requesting the PTC to reject defense’s appeal of the OCIJ’s Closing Order)
• Ieng Sary, PTC,  Pros., Co-prosecutors’ Request to file a Joint Response to the Appeal Brief of Nuon Chea, Ieng Sary, Khieu Samphan and Ieng Thirith against the Closing Order (6 October 2010)
• Appeal Against Order on the Admissibility of Civil Party Applicants From Current Residents of Kampong Chhnang Province (D417) (27 Sept 2010) (Arguing the CIJs committed errors in law and violated procedural fairness by rejecting in mass the civil party applicants and requesting that the Pre-Trial Chamber reconsider the applications)
• Ieng Sary, PTC,  Pros., Response to the DSS request to submit an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court Chamber (23 September 2010)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Def., Reply to the Co-Prosecutors’ Response to Ieng Sary, Ieng Thirith and Khieu Samphan’s Appeals on Joint Criminal Enterprise, D97/14/14 (18 March 2010)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Def., Notice of Intention to be heard at the Hearing Concerning his Appeal against the OCIJ’s Denial of His Defence Team’s Request to Conduct Audio/Video Recordings at the ECCC Detention Facility, A371/2/6 (12 May 2010)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Def., Notice of Intention to be heard at the Hearing Concerning his Appeal against the Application of Command Responsibility at the ECCC, D345/5/6 (12 May 2010)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Def., Notice of Intent to be heard concerning the OCP’s Appeal regarding Request to place on Case File Additional Evidentiary Material which assists in proving the charged persons’ knowledge of the Crimes, D365/2/5  (12 May 2010)
• Appeal Against Combined Order on Co-Prosecutors’ Two Requests for Investigative Action Regarding Khmer Krom and the Civil Parties Request for Supplementary Investigations Regarding Genocide of the Khmer Krom and the Vietnamese (12 Feb 2010) (Requesting the CIJ order be set aside and order the Charged Persons with various crimes regarding Khmer Krom and Vietnamese Civil Parties).
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Def., Appeal against the OCIJ’s Order on the Application at the ECCC of the form of liability known as Joint Criminal Enterprise, D97/14/5 (22 January 2010)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Def., Expedited Request for Extension of Page Limit for Ieng Sary’s Appeal against the OCIJ’s Order on the Application at the ECCC of the Form of Liability known as Joint Criminal Enterprise, D97/14/3 (15 January 2010)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Civil Party, Civil Party Co-Lawyers’ Response to the Appeal of Ieng Sary against Extension of Provisional Detention, C22/9/3 (22 December 2009)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Pros., Response to Ieng Sary’s Appeal on Extension of Detention, C22/9/2 (18 December 2009)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Def., Motion to join Nuon Chea’s lawyers’ Request for Adoption of certain Procedural Measures, D235/1 (12 November 2009)
• Ieng Sary, PTC,  Pros., Response to Ieng Sary’s Applications for “Appropriate Measures” Concerning the International Judges of the Pre-Trial Chamber (5 November 2009)
• Ieng Sary, PTC,  Judges Downing and Lahuis, Response to Ieng Sary’s Request for Appropriate Measures to be taken Concerning Certain Statements by Prime Minister Hun Sen which Challenge the Independence of Pre-Trial Chamber Judges Katinka Lahuis and Rowan Downing (1 November 2009)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Def., Ieng Sary’s Request for Appropriate Measures to be taken Concerning certain statements by Prime Minister Hun Sen which Challenge the Independence of Pre-Trial Chamber Judges Katinka Lahuis and Rowan Downing (20 October 2009)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Def., Reply to the Co-Prosecutors’ Response to the Appeal against the Co-Investigating Judges’ Order Denying the Joint Defence Request for Investigative Action to Seek Exculpatory Evidence in the Shared Materials Drive, D164/3/4, (24 August 2009)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Pros., Combined Response to the Appeals by Ieng Thirith, Nuon Chea, Khieu Samphan and Ieng Sary against the Co-Investigating Judges’ Order Denying a Joint Defence Request for Investigative Action to Seek Exculpatory Evidence in the Shared Materils Drive, D164/4/2 (10 August 2009)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Def., Appeal from OCIJ Order Denying Joint Defense Request for Further Investigative Action to Seek Exculpatory Evidence in the Shared Materials Drive, D164/3/1 (27 July 2009) (arguing that the civil nature of the ECCC system means that the OCIJ must investigate the entirety of the case file rather than issuing an indictment when there is “sufficient” evidence, and also adopting the logic of Nuon Chea and Ieng Thirith’s previously-lodged appeal)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Pros., Response to Application for Disqualification of Investigators Herder and Boyle, 2 (23 July 2007) (arguing that (1) Rule 34 applies solely to judges, not investigators, and (2) that defense counsel has failed to identify any information that shows bias)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Def., Application for the Disqualification of OCIJ Investigators Herder and Boyle, 1 (8 July 2009)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Pros., Response to Appeal Against OCIJ Order Denying Request for Investigative Action Regarding Allegations of Administrative Corruption, D158/5/4/10 (29 May 2009) (arguing that the OCIJ decision should be upheld because investigation into corruption is outside the jurisdiction of the OCIJ and because there is no sufficient link between allegations of administrative corruption and the fair trial rights of accused persons)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Def., Appeal Against OCIJ Order on Request for Investigative Action Regarding Ongoing Allegations of Corruption & Request for Expedited Oral Hearing, D158/5/3/1 (4 May 2009)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Pros., Observations on Appeal Against the OCIJ Confidentiality Order, D138/1/5 (27 March 2009)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Civil Party, Statement on Appeal Against OCIJ Order on Breach of Confidentiality, D138/1/3 (25 March 2009)(arguing that documents that do not affect the rights and obligations of the parties are not confidential and that any document the confidentiality of which is waived by the concerned party may be published by any party, regardless whether or not it is published on the ECCC website)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Civil Party (unrepresented – Theary Chan Seng), Statement on Appeal Against OCIJ Order on Breach of Confidentiality, D138/1/4 (25 March 2009)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Pros., Response to Application to Examine a Doctor During the Oral Hearing of Detention Extension Appeal, C22/5/30 (12 March 2009)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Def., Expedited Request for Dr. Paulus Falke to Give Expert Evidence During the Oral Hearing on Provisional Detention, C22/5/28 (12 March 2009)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Pros., Response to Application Seeking Order to Calmette Hospital to Disclose Medical Records, C22/5/27 (10 March 2009)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Def., Appeal Against the OCIJ Order on Breach of Confidentiality of the Judicial Investigation, D138/1/1 (10 March 2009)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Def., Expedited Request for an Order to Calmette Hospital to Immediately Disclose Medical Records and List of Treating Physician, C22/5/25 (3 March 2009)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Pros., Response to Appeal on Extension of Provisional Detention, C22/5/7 (21 Jan. 2009)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Def., Response to the PTC’s Directions Concerning the Co-Prosecutor’s Request to Determine the Appeal [from the Order Extending Provisional Detention] on the Basis of Written Submissions Alone, C22/5/9 (19 Jan 2009)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Def., Appeal Against OCIJ Order on Extension of Provisional Detention, C22/5/1 (10 Dec. 2008)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Pros., Response to Motion to Disqualify Amicus Curiae in the Duch Closing Order Appeal, D99/3/22 (13 Oct. 2008)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Def., Motion to Disqualify Prof. Antonio Cassesse et al. from Submitting an Amicus Brief in the Co-Prosecutor’s Appeal of the Closing Order Indicting Duch, D99/3/18 (3 Oct. 2008)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Def., Expedited Request to Make Submissions on the Application of Joint Criminal Enterprise Liability in the Co-Prosecutor’s Appeal of the Closing Order Indicting Duch, D99/3/6 (15 Sept. 2008)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Def., Reply to the Co-Prosecutor’s Response to the Appeal on Translation Rights and Obligations of the Parties, A190/II/8 (11 Sept. 2008)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Pros., Response to Appeal on Translation Rights and Obligations of the Parties, A190/II/5 (15 Aug. 2008)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Pros., Response to Motion on Joint Criminal Enterprise, D99/II (11 Aug. 2008)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Def., Appeal Against OCIJ Decision Concerning Translation Rights and Obligations (22 July 2008)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Civil Party (names redacted), Response of Three Unrepresented Civil Parties to [Theary Seng’s] Application for Reconsideration of Civil Parties’ Right to Address the Chamber (21 July 2008)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Civil Party (Theary Seng), Application for Declarative Relief, Not Re-Hearing (17 July 2008)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Pros., Response to Application for Reconsideration of the Pre-Trial Chamber’s Decision Re a Civil Party’s Right to Audience (17 July 2008)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Civil Party (joint civil parties), Observations on Application for Reconsideration of Civil Party’s Right to Address the Chamber (17 July 2008)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Civil Party (Theary Seng), Application of Reconsideration on Civil Party’s Right to Address Pre-Trial Chamber (2 July 2008)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Pros., Response to Submission on Conflict of Interest of OCIJ Investigator (23 June 2008)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Def., Appeal Against OCIJ Decision on the “Defence Request for Information on Potential Bias of OCIJ Legal Officer David Boyle”(6 June 2008)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Civil Party (joint civil parties), Response to Appeal Against Provisional Detention Order (20 May 2008)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on Request to Suspend Consideration of Appeal Against Provisional Detention and Place Ieng Sary in the a Hospital Facility (30 April 2008)(Note: Denying request for suspension; request for hospital admission to be considered with Appeal)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Pros., Response to the Application to Postpone the Hearing of the Appeal Against the Provisional Detention Order (28 March 2008)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Def., Application to Postpone the Hearing of the Appeal Against the Provisional Detention Order (21 March 2008)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Civil Party (joint civil parties), Joint Response to Submissions on the Participation of Civil Parties in Provisional Detention Appeals (6 Mar. 2008)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Def. (with lawyers for Nuon Chea and Ieng Thirith), Joint Response to Submissions on Civil Party Participation in Provisional Detention Appeals (6 Mar. 2008)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Def. (with lawyers for Khieu Samphan, Nuon Chea, and Ieng Thirith), Submissions on Civil-Party Participation in Appeals Related to Provisional Detention (22 Feb. 2008)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Amici- Mr. Mahdev Mohan and Mrs. Vinita Ramani Mohan, Re Provisional Detention Appeal (19 Feb. 2008)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Amici: Anne Heindel, Re Appeal Against Order of Provision (18 Feb. 2008)
  • Khmer Version
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Def., Appeal Against Provisional Detention Order (15 Jan. 2008)

Orders, Decisions, and Judgments

• Ieng Sary, PTC, Directions to the Co-Lawyers for Ieng Sary, Ieng Thirith and Nuon Chea to File a Response to the Appeals Lodged by the Civil Party Applicants (4 May 2011) (Setting a deadline of May 19, 2011 for defense to file their responses to various appeals before the Pre-Trial Chamber)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on Ieng Sary’s Request to Reclassify All PTC08 Documents as Public (3 May 2011) (Dismissing the request to reclassify documents pertaining to an investigation conducted pursuant to Internal Rule 35 on allegations of interference with the administration of justice as ‘Public’)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on Ieng Sary’s Appeal Against the Closing Order (11 Apr 2011) (Dismissing the appeals)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Order on Co-Prosecutors’ and Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyers’ Request for Extension of Time and Page Limits (4 Mar 2011) (Granting the request in part, allowing a consolidated response to preliminary objections of defense not exceeding 35 pages no later than 21 March 2011)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Trial Chamber Memorandum on the Request Dated 6 January 2011 to the Pre-Trial Chamber by the Co-Lawyers for Nuon Chea Seeking a Resumption of Periodic Detention Interviews, Pursuant to Internal Rule 63(8) (2 Mar 2011) (Rejecting the request for lack of jurisdiction)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on Appeals by Nuon Chea and Ieng Thirith Against the Closing Order (15 Feb 2011) (Dismissing nearly all appeals, but granting one to add a nexus element to Chapeau requirements listed in the Closing Order)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on Ieng Sary’s Appeal Against the Closing Order: Reasons for Continuation of Provisional Detention(24 Jan 2011) (Rejecting the appeals and offering reasons for the extension of provisional detention)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on Ieng Sary’s Appeal Against the Closing Order’s Extension of His Provisional Detention (21 Jan 2011) (Rejecting the request, finding the extension of provisional detention in accordance with law)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on Ieng Sary’s Appeal Against the Closing Order (13 Jan 2011) (Dismissing the appeal, but granting two requests for changes to the Closing Order, and sending the case to trial)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on Ieng Sary’s Appeal Against the Closing Order’s Extension of His Provisional Detention (13 Jan 2011) (Dismissing the appeal)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on reconsideration of Co-Prosecutors’ Appeal against the Co-Investigating Judges Order on Request to Place Additional Evidentiary Material on the Case File which Assists in Proving the Charged Persons’ Knowledge of the Crimes(27 September 2010)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on Ieng Sary’s appeal against OCIJ decision refusing to accept the filing of Ieng Sary’s response to the Co-Prosecutors’ rule 66 final submission and additional observations and request for stay of the proceedings (20 September 2010)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Second decision on Nuon Chea’s and Ieng Sary’s appeal against OCIJ order on request to summons witnesses (9 September 2010)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, [Redacted] Decision on Ieng Sary’s Appeal against the Co-Investigating Judge’s order denying his request for appointment of an additional demographic expert to Re-examine the subject matter of the expert report submitted by Ms.EWA TABEAU  and Mr. THEY KHEAM (29 June 2010)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Second decision on Nuon Chea’s and Ieng Sary’s Appeal against the OCIJ Order on requests to summons Witnesses, D314/1/12 (9 September 2010)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on Ieng Sary’s and on Ieng ThirithApplications under Rule 34 to Disqualify Judge Marcel Lemonde[Redacted], (16 June 2010) (unanimously dismissing the defense appeal to disqualify Judge Lemonde on the basis of bias)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on Ieng Sary’s and on Ieng ThirithApplications under Rule 34 to Disqualify Judge Marcel Lemonde[Redacted], (16 June 2010) (unanimously dismissing the defense appeal to disqualify Judge Lemonde on the basis of bias)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on Co-Prosecutors’ Appeal against the Co-Investigating Judges Order on Request to Place on Case File Additional Evidentiary Material which assists in proving the Charged Persons’ Knowledge of the Crimes, D365/2/10 (15 June 2010)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on Ieng sary’s appeal against Co-investigating judges’s order denying request to allow audio/video recording of meetings with Ieng Sary at the detention faculty, A371/2/12 (14 June 2010) (holding the appeal inadmissible under Internal Rule 77(13))
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on Ieng Sary’s Appeal against Co-Investigating Judges’ Order on Ieng Sary’s Motion against the Application of Command Responsibility, D345/5/11 (09 June 2010) (holding the appeal inadmissible under Internal Rule 77(13))
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on Ieng Sary’s Appeal against the Co-investigating’s judges’s rejection of Ieng Sary’s third request to provide the defence with an analytical table of the evidence with the closing order, A372/2/7 (8 June 2010) (holding the appeal inadmissible under Internal Rule 77(13))
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on Appeal against the Co-investigating Juges’s Order issuing Warnings under Internal Rule 38, D367/1/5 (07 June 2010) (holding the defense appeal to be inadmissible)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on the Appeals Against the Co-Investigative Judges Order on Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE), D97/15/9 (20 May 2010)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on Admissibility of Ieng Sary’s Appeal against the OCIJ’s Constructive Denial of Ieng Sary’s Requests Concerning the OCIJ’s Identification of and Reliance on Evidence Obtained through Torture, D130/7/3/5 (10 May 2010) (declaring Ieng Sary’s appeal to be inadmissible)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on Ieng Sary’s Appeal against Order on Extension of Provisional Detention, C22/9/14 (30 April 2010) (affirming the OCIJ’s order to extend the provisional detention of Ieng Sary)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Pre-Trial Chamber Hearing Schedule (30 April 2010) (setting forth the Pre-Trial Chamber’s hearing schedule for May and June 2010)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Scheduling order, C22/9/11 (26 April 2010)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on Ieng Sary’s Rule 35 Application for Judge Marcel Lemonde’s Disqualification (29 March 2010)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on Ieng Sary’s Expedited Request for Extension of Page Limit for Ieng Sary’s Appeal against the OCIJ’s Order on the Application at the ECCC of the Form of Liability known as Joint Criminal Enterprise, D97/14/4 (20 January 2010)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Scheduling Order, C22/9/4 (20 January 2010)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on Co-Lawyer’s Application for Extension of Time to File Ieng Sary’s Appeal against the OCIJ’s Order on the Application at the ECCC of the Form of Liability Known as Joint Criminal Enterprise, D97/14/2 (22 December 2009)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on Ieng Sary’s Appeal against the Co-Investigating Judges’ Constructive Denial of Ieng Sary’s Third Request for Investigative Action, D171/4/5 (22 December 2009)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on Ieng Sary’s Appeal Against the Co-Investigating Judges’ Order on Request for Additional Expert, D140/4/5 (14 December 2009)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on Ieng Sary’s Application to disqualify Co-Investigating Judge Marcel Lemonde (9 December 2009)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on Ieng Sary’s Request for Appropriate Measures Concerning Certain Statements by Prime Minister Hun Sen Challenging the Independence of Pre-Trial Chamber Judges Katinka Lahuis and Rowan Downing (30 November 2009)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on the Charged Person’s Application for Disqualification of Drs. Stephen Heder and David Boyle, (22 September 2009)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on Admissibility of the Defense Appeal from the OCIJ Order on Breach of Confidentiality, D138/1/8 (13 July 2009) (concluding that the OCP and Civil Parties have no standing to make submissions on the appeal, and that the appeal itself is inadmissible because the PTC may hear appeals only against OCIJ “orders,” not appeals against OCIJ “warnings”)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on Appeal Against Provisional Detention, E22/5/39 (26 June 2009) (affirming the OCIJ decision to extend provisional detention)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on Expedited Request for an Order to Calmette Hospital, C22/5/33 (30 March 2009)(rejecting request as outside the jurisdiction of an appellate body like the PTC)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on Expedited Request for Dr. Paulus Falke to Give Expert Evidence During the Oral Hearing on Provisional Detention, C22/5/34 (30 March 2009)(rejecting request on the grounds that Ieng Sary’s health is not a significant issue in the determination of his appeal from provisional detention)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Written Version of Oral Decision of 26 February 2009 on the Requests Presented Before the PTC During the Hearing Held on the Same Day, C22/5/24 (27 Feb. 2009)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on Request to Summon Medical Experts to Give Evidence During the Oral Hearing on Provisional Detention, C22/5/18 (23 Feb. 2009)(rejecting the defense’s request because medical issues were insufficiently briefed in the appeal against provisional detention filings and there was no evidence indicating that further testimony on the issue was necessary)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Report of Examination of Appeal Against Extension of Provisional Detention, C22/5/17 (23 Feb. 2009)(outlining issues presented by Ieng Sary’s Appeal Against the Order Extending Provisional Detention)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on Appeal Against the OCIJ’s Order on Translation Rights and Obligations of the Parties, A190/II/9 (20 Feb. 2009)( finding the appeal inadmissible, because the challenged Translation Order does not fall within any of the enumerated categories of appealable decisions established by Rule 74(3)(b))
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on Co-Prosecutor’s Request to Determine the Appeal on the Basis of Written Submissions and Scheduling Order, C22/5/10 (29 Jan. 2009)(rejecting the Co-Prosecutor’s request and scheduling oral hearings)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on Appeal Regarding Appointment of a Psychiatric Expert (21 Oct. 2008)(finding the appeal of the application to the Co-Investigating Judges to appoint an expert to determine fitness for trial admissible, but denying the need for the expert)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on Appeal from Provisional Detention(17 Oct. 2008)(denying appeal)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on Motion to Disqualify Amicus Curiae(14 Oct. 2008)(denying motion on the basis that Ieng Sary does not have standing to move to disqualify an amicus in proceedings against Kang Guek Eav)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Public Directions on Unrepresented Civil Parties’ Rights to Address the Pre-Trial Chamber in Person (29 Aug. 2008)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on Application for Reconsideration of Civil Parties’ Right to Address Pre-Trial Chamber in Person (28 Aug. 2008) (Note: Application for Reconsideration denied)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on Appeal Against Letter Concerning Request for Information on Legal Officer David Boyle (28 Aug. 2008)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Further Directions Concerning Application for Reconsideration of Civil Party’s Right to Address the Chamber (14 July 2008)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on Civil Parties’ Request for Protective Measures (8 July 2008) (Note: Granting civil parties’ request for confidentiality)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on Civil Party Request to Address the Court in Person (oral decision 1 July 2008, written decision 3 July 2008) (Note: Denying Theary Seng’s request; subsequently challenged)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on Preliminary Matters Raised by Civil Parties in Appeal Against Provisional Detention (1 July 2008) (Note: Reiterating previous PTC rulings limiting civil party oral submissions on provisional detention and requiring civil parties with counsel to address the court through counsel)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Report of Examination (25 June 2008) (Note: Describing the Co-Investigating Judges’ Order of Provisional Detention, the submissions of the Prosecution and Defence, and relevant facts from the case file, in anticipation of the hearing of the appeal against provisional detention)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on Defence Request for Translation Services (19 June 2008) (Note: Declaring request inadmissible)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Directions on Civil Party Oral Submissions in Provisional Detention Hearing (20 May 2008) (Note: Requiring civil parties with counsel to address the court through counsel)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on Appeal Concerning Contact Between Accused and his Wife Ieng Thirith (30 Apr 2008)(Note: overrules previous OCIJ decision limiting contact)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on the Application to Postpone the Hearing of the Appeal Against the Provisional Detention Order (1 April 2008)
• Ieng Sary, PTC, Decision on the Admissibility of the Appeal Regarding Visitation (21 March 2008)

Pleadings

• Lead Co-Lawyers’ Response to Trial Chamber Directives on the Tendering into Evidence of Civil Party Written Statements & Other Documents (With Confidential & Strictly Confidential Annexes) (4 Mar 2013) (Providing the Chamber with specifics on the Civil Party Written Statements they seek to admit into evidence and requesting admission of certain statements into evidence).
• Ieng Sary’s Response to Co-Prosecutors’ Rule 92 Submission Regarding Civil Party Testimony (4 Mar 2013) (Requesting that the Chamber reject the OCP’s submission that the weight and probative value of Civil Party testimony should be assessed using the same standards as witness testimony).
• Ieng Sary’s Response to Co-Prosecutors’ Rule 93 Request to Open an Investigation into the Whereabouts of Potential Witness (Redacted)(4 Mar 2013) (Stating that the request is untimely and requesting that the Chamber reject a request to place a transcript into evidence in lieu of locating a witness).
• Co-Prosecutors’ Rule 87(4) Request to Place Photographs on the Case File Which are Relevant to the Expert Witness Testimony of Elizabeth Becker (1 Mar 2013) (Requesting to place 12 photographs on the Case File).
• Co-Prosecutors’ Request to Establish Procedure Regarding Admission of Documents not Translated in all ECCC Languages (28 Feb 2013) (Asking to clarify the status of translation issues and requesting the Chamber to determine the admissibility of documents not translated into all three languages).
• Ieng Sary’s Objections to OCP List of New Documents Put on the Case File by TC Decision E190 (22 Feb 2013) (Providing an in-depth list of objections to various documents).
• Co-Prosecutors’ Joint Response to Ieng Sary & Khieu Samphan Objections to the Admission of Certain Documents (22 Feb 2013) (Requesting that the Chamber reject all of the Defence objections to the admissibility of the documents).
• Ieng Sary’s Objections to the Admission of Documents Contained in E190.1 and E190/2.1 (22 Feb 2013) (Submitting objections to the documents in order to assist the Chamber in determining the admissibility of certain documents).
• Ieng Sary’s Notice of Objection to TCW-624’s Request to Testify via Video Link(21 Feb 2013) (Objecting to the request for video link testimony).
• Co-Prosecutors’ Rule 92 Submission Regarding Civil Party Testimony (21 Feb 2013) (Providing the Co-Prosecutors’ submissions concerning the weight to be afforded to Civil Party testimony).
• Ieng Sary’s Second Rule 87(4) Request Regarding Material Which May Be Used During the Examination of Expert Elizabeth Becker(13 Feb 2013) (Requesting to put additional material before the Chamber to be used when examining Expert Elizabeth Becker)
• Lead Co-Lawyers’ Indication to the Trial Chamber of the Priority Projects for Implementation as Reparations (Internal Rule 80Bis(4)) with Confidential Annexes (12 Feb 2013) (Listing and providing details on seven prioritized reparations projects)
• Ieng Sary’s Request to Re-Classify E238/4 as Public (29 Jan 2013) (Requesting to re-classify the document as public)
• Co-Prosecutors’ Follow-Up Request to Place on the Case File a Video Recording of a Lecture by Expert Witness Philip Short (24 Jan 2013) (Requesting to place the video on the Case File)
• Ieng Sary’s Objections to the Documents Proposed by the OCP in E223/2/2.5 (23 Jan 2013) (Providing a detailed list of the Accused’s document objections)
• Ieng Sary’s Objections to the Documents Proposed by the OCP in E223/2.1 (23 Jan 2013) (Providing a detailed list of the Accused’s document objections)
• Ieng Sary’s Objections to the Documents Proposed by the OCP in E223/2/1.4 (23 Jan 2013) (Providing a detailed list of the Accused’s document objections)
• Ieng Sary’s Objections to the Documents Proposed by the OCP in E223/2/1.3(23 Jan 2013) (Providing a detailed list of the Accused’s document objections)
• Ieng Sary’s Objections to Documents Cited in the Closing Order(23 Jan 2013) (Providing a detailed list of the Accused’s document objections)
• Ieng Sary’s Objections to the Admission of Certain Documents (23 Jan 2013) (Requesting that the Chamber reject the documents to which the Accused objects)
• Co-Prosecutors’ Submission on Scope of the Health Assessment of Nuon Chea and Ieng Sary (21 Jan 2013) (Stating that the upcoming health assessment should cover both physical and mental health and should suggest any adjustments or improvements necessary for treatment)
• Ieng Sary’s Submission on Applicable Law in Case 002/01 (18 Jan 2013) (Submitting the law applicable to the crimes and modes of liability alleged in the Case)
• Co-Prosecutors’ Rule 92 Submission on the Crime Against Humanity of Other Inhumane Acts in Respect of Forced Transfer (17 Jan 2013) (Addressing the elements of forced transfer based upon developments in international law)
• Ieng Sary’s Submissions (Recommendations) Concerning the Scope of the March 2013 Examination by Professor A. John Campbell and Drs. Seena Fazel and Lina Hout(18 Jan 2013) (Providing recommendations for the Accused’s medical assessment in March)
• Resignation from All Mandates in Cases 002, 003, and 004 (16 Jan 2013) (Informing the Chamber of the resignation of International Civil Party Lawyer Silke Studzinsky)
• Co-Prosecutors’ Response to Ieng Sary’s Request for Information Concerning TCE-33(8 Jan 2013) (Submitting that the request should be dismissed for a lack of both legal and factual basis)
• Ieng Sary’s Request for Modification of the Trial Chamber’s Memorandum to His Treating Doctor at the Detention Facility (E238/12/1) (10 Jan 2013) (Rejecting the request to provide daily assessments of the Accused’s capacity to participate in trial)
• Notice of Changes to Defence Team Members List (9 Jan 2013) (Noting recent departures and additions to all Defence teams)
• Authorization to the Co-Prosecutors to Contact Professor Kiernan in Relation to the Missing Second Page of Document E3/1173 (8 Jan 2013) (Authorizing the Co-Prosecutors to contact the Professor and to re-file the document should they obtain the missing page)
• Consolidated Schedule of Witnesses and Experts for Early 2013 (8 Jan 2013) (Outlining the schedule of hearings for early 2013)
• Summons-Accused (20 Dec 2012) (Summonsing the Accuseds to court on 8 January 2013)
• Memorandum to the Doctor Treating Ieng Sary at the Detention Centre (18 Dec 2012) (Directing the treating physician to report to the Chamber daily on the condition of the Accused)
• Re-Appointment of Experts to Review the Health and Fitness of Ieng Sary and Nuon Chea During the Week of 11 March 2012 (18 Dec 2012) (Stating that the health of both Accuseds will be reviewed during that week)
• Co-Prosecutors’ Response to ‘Ieng Sary’s Supplemental Request for a Qualified Expert to Make Daily Medical Examinations Related to Mr. Ieng Sary’s Capacity to Assist in His Own Defence or, in the Alternative, Request for the Trial Chamber to Order the ECCC Doctors to Make Specific Observations Relevant to Mr. Ieng Sary’s Capacity to Assist in His Own Defence (14 Dec 2012) (Requesting that the reports contain sufficient information to monitor the Accused’s condition and requesting that the Co-Prosecutors receive copies of the reports)
• Ieng Sary’s Submissions on the Law Permitting Him to be Audio and/or Video Recorded in the Holding Cell (14 Dec 2012) (Requesting that the Chamber permit the recording because it is a fundamental right of the defence to make such recordings)
• Ieng Sary’s Supplemental Request for a Qualified Expert to Make Daily Medical Examinations Related to Mr. Ieng Sary’s Capacity to Assist in his Own Defence or, In the Alternative, Request for the Trial Chamber to Order the ECCC Doctors to Make Specific Observations Relevant to Mr. Ieng Sary’s Capacity Assist in His Own Defence (12 Dec 2012) (Requesting that the Chamber order an expert or doctors to assess the Accused’s condition daily to determine whether he has the capacity to assist in his defence)
• Judicial Recesses During 2013 (11 Dec 2012) (Informing the parties of the dates for all currently scheduled judicial recesses in 2013)
• Co-Prosecutors’ Urgent Response to Ieng Sary’s Request Concerning Video-Link Testimony for TCCP-1, with Annex (11 Dec 2012) (Requesting the Chamber to dismiss the request and proceed to hear the video link testimony)
• Written Record of Proceedings (10 Oct 2012) (Providing a written record of the evidentiary proceedings on that date)
• Ieng Sary’s Request for Information Concerning TCE-33 (7 Dec 2012) (Requesting information on the witness’s background and professional activities)
• Ieng Sary’s Request for Reconsideration of the Trial Chamber’s Decision Finding Him Fit to Stand Trial and Rejecting His Request for the Appointment of an Additional Expert to Assist in Determining Fitness (7 Dec 2012) (Requesting that the Chamber reconsider the decision because the decision was made without an opportunity to present all the necessary information)
• Co-Prosecutors’ Request for Clarification Regarding the Trial Chamber’s ‘Decision on Objections to Documents Proposed to be Put Before the Chamber in Co-Prosectuors’ Annexes A6-A11 and A14-A20 and by the Other Parties’ (7 Dec 2012) (Requesting confirmation that only witness statements and Civil Party applications must be translated into all three ECCC languages)
• Clarification Regarding Applicable Law Briefs (7 Dec 2012) (Clarifying that the Chamber has set strict page limits for closing briefs)
• Ieng Sary’s Submission of His Defence Team’s Daily Observations from the Holding Cell Concerning Mr. Ieng Sary’s Condition for 6 December 2012 (7 Dec 2012) (Submitting the Defence team’s daily observations of the Accused because the Chamber ordered that the Accused participate via holding cell rather than in court)
• Ieng Sary’s Notice of Withdrawal of Waivers of Right to Be Present During the Testimony of Certain Witnesses and Civil Parties (6 Dec 2012) (Withdrawing past waivers and stating the Accused’s intention to be physically present in the courtroom during the witness and civil party testimonies)
• Ieng Sary’s Submission of His Defence Team’s Daily Observations from the Holding Cell Concerning Mr. Ieng Sary’s Condition for 5 December 2012 (6 Dec 2012) (Submitting the Defence team’s daily observations of the Accused because the Chamber ordered that the Accused participate via holding cell rather than in court)
• Co-Prosecutors’ Request to Disclose A Prior Interview of Witness TCW-247, with Confidential Annex A (4 Dec 2012) (Requesting to put a summary record of the interview on the Case File)
• Indication of Priority Projects for Implementation as Reparation (Internal Rule 80bis(4)) (3 Dec 2012) (Clarifying that the implementation of reparations projects may begin prior to the verdict in Case 002/01 and that the Lead Co-Lawyers and Victims Support section should identify the funds available to support the projects)
• Summons-Accused (3 Dec 2012) (Summonsing the Accused to court on 4 Dec 2012)
• Order to Bring (3 Dec 2012) (Ordering the Detention Facility to bring the Accused to court on 4 Dec 2012)
• Ieng Sary’s Withdrawal of Waivers of Right to Be Present (3 Dec 2012) (Withdrawing past waivers and stating the Accused’s intention to be physically present in the courtroom)
• Further Notification of Modalities for Closing Briefs (26 Nov 2012) (Providing directions regarding the language, page limits, and deadlines for the Closing Briefs)
• Response to Chamber Inquiry Regarding Incident on 16-17 October 2012 (26 Nov 2012) (Reporting findings after looking into an incident where doctors did not properly respond to Ieng Sary’s coughing and vomiting and stating that the hospital has taken remedial actions so that no new incidents occur)
• Announcement of Upcoming Witnesses (26 Nov 2012) (Informing the parties of the witnesses scheduled to testify in December)
• Co-Prosecutors’ Response to the Trial Chamber’s Request to Indicate Additional Documents Relevant to the Population Movement  and Tuol Po Chrey Trial Segments and Motion for Scheduling of Documentary Hearings  (23 Nov 2012) (Putting 48 relevant documents before the Chamber and requesting the scheduling of seven admissibility and presentation hearings)
• Response to Co-Prosecutors’ Rule 87(4) Request to Place on the Case File Books Authored by Witnesses Francois Ponchaud and Sydney Schanberg (22 Nov 2012) (Requesting that the Chamber reject the request to place the entire books on the Case File and requesting that Chamber order the Co-Prosecutors to only place specific passages in the Case File)
• Delegation of Authority (22 November- 14 December 2012) (22 Nov 2012) (Informing the parties of the Senior Legal Officer’s annual leave and of her replacement during that time period)
• Written Record of Proceedings (22 Nov 2012) (Providing a written record of the evidentiary proceedings on that date)
• Ieng Sary’s Motion to Join Nuon Chea’s Preliminary Response to Co-Prosecutors’ Further Request to Put Before the Chamber Written Statements and Transcripts (21 Nov 2012) (Requesting to join all factual and legal arguments by Nuon Chea’s Defence in the matter)
• Co-Prosecutors’ Response to Nuon Chea Notice of Joinder to Ieng Sary’s Request E-234 (19 Nov 2012) (Objecting to the timeliness of the filing and requesting that the joinder be dismissed)
• Co-Prosecutors’ Response to ‘Ieng Sary’s Request for the Trial Chamber to Hold a Public Hearing and Take Evidence Concerning the OCIJ’s Widespread and Systematic Practice of Conducting Unrecorded Interviews with Witnesses (15 Nov 2012) (Submitting that the request be dismissed because the Defence failed to meet the burden necessary for the Chamber to open an investigation)
• Written Record of Proceedings (14 Nov 2012) (Providing a written record of the evidentiary proceedings on that date)
• Written Record of Proceedings (12 Nov 2012) (Providing a written record of the evidentiary proceedings and hearing on Ieng Sary health issues on that date)
• Preliminary Response to Co-Prosecutors’ Further Request to Put Before the Chamber Written Statements and Transcripts (8 Nov 2012) (Seeking clarification concerning the legal standards applicable to the admission of written statements, submitting categories of evidence that are inadmissible, and reserving the right to identify further categories of statements)
• Written Record of Proceedings (8 Nov 2012) (Providing a written record of the hearing on Ieng Sary’s situation on that date)
• Summons-Accused (7 Nov 2012) (Summonsing Ieng Sary to the hearing)
• Transfer of Ieng Sary to ECCC Detention Facility on 8 November 2012 Hearing (7 Nov 2012) (Requesting that the hospital transfer Ieng Sary to the ECCC Detention Facility for the hearing)
• Written Record of Proceedings (6 Nov 2012) (Providing a written record of the evidentiary proceedings on that date)
• Written Record of Proceedings (5 Nov 2012) (Providing a written record of the evidentiary proceedings on that date)
• Ieng Sary Defence’s Motion to Strike Co-Proscutors’ Notice on Key Issues to Be Discussed at 17 August 2012 Trial Management Meeting and its Annex or, in the Alternative, Request to Respond (E218/3) (5 Nov 2012) (Denying the relief sought because the Chamber permitted subsequent filings on the issues)
• Notice of Joinder to Ieng Sary’s Request E-234 (2 Nov 2012) (Requesting that Ieng Sary’s request to seek clarification as to the questioning of Witness Norng Sophang be joined with Nuon Chea’s request)
• Issues Relating to Fitness Hearing of Ieng Sary on Thursday 8 November 2012 (2 Nov 2012) (Submitting a list of questions the Co-Prosecutors would like to be addressed by the medical experts in their examination of the Accused)
• Withdrawal of Medical Expert (Dr. Lor Vann Thary) (2 Nov 2012) (Informing the parties that Dr. Lor Vann Thary is no longer available to examine the witness)
• Ieng Sary’s Request for the Trial Chamber to Hold a Public Hearing and Take Evidence Concerning the OCIJ’s Widespread and Systematic Practice of Conducting Unrecorded Interviews with Witnesses (2 Nov 2012) (Requesting the public hearing because the Defence recently learned of 12 instances where the OCIJ conducted unrecorded interviews with witnesses)
• Co-Prosecutors’ Response to Ieng Sary Rule 87(4) Request Regarding Material Which May Be Used During the Examination of Elizabeth Becker (30 Oct 2012) (Deciding not to object to the admissibility of the Book Review but submitting that its evidentiary value is limited)
• Ieng Sary’s Limited Waiver of Right to Be Present During Court Proceedings (30 Oct 2012) (Waiving the right to be present during the testimony of certain witnesses)
• Written Record of Proceedings (25 Oct 2012) (Providing a written record of the evidentiary proceedings on that date)
• Written Record of Proceedings (24 Oct 2012) (Providing a written record of the evidentiary proceedings on that date)
• Scheduling of Medical Expert Testimony (Professor Campbell and Dr. Lor Vann Thary) (23 Oct 2012) (Appointing Dr. Lor Vann Thary as a medical expert to examine Ieng Sary and informing the parties when the two medical experts will testify)
• Written Record of Proceedings (23 Oct 2012) (Providing a written record of the evidentiary proceedings on that date)
• Written Record of Proceedings (22 Oct 2012) (Providing a written record of the evidentiary proceedings on that date)
• Written Record of Proceedings (19 Oct 2012) (Providing a written record of the evidentiary proceedings on that date)
• Forthcoming Document Hearings and Response to Lead Co-Lawyers’ Memorandum Concerning the Trial Chamber’s Request to Identify Civil Party Applications for Use at Trial (E208/4) and Khieu Samphan Defense Request to Revise Corroborative Evidence Lists (E223) (19 Oct 2012) (Stating that the Chamber will soon schedule hearings to challenge the remaining documents at issue in Case 002/01, advising that only statements which have been translated into all official ECCC languages can be offered before the Chamber as evidence, and granting to the Lead Co-Laywers the opportunity to indicate which Civil Party Applications are part of the representative sample that they wish to offer into evidence)
• Written Record of Proceedings (18 Oct 2012) (Providing a written record of the evidentiary proceedings on that date)
• Ieng Sary’s Rule 87(4) Request Regarding Material Which May Be Used During the Examination of Elizabeth Becker (12 Oct 2012) (Requesting to use a review of Elizabeth Becker’s book during her examination)
• Co-Prosecutors’ Response to ‘Ieng Sary’s Request that the Trial Chamber Seek Clarification from the OCIJ as to the Questioning of Witness Norng Sophang on 17 February 2009 and Summon the OCIJ Investigators to Give Evidence Regarding this Interview’ (8 Oct 2012) (Requesting that the Trial Chamber dismiss all parts of the Defence request except for the request to place a record of the interview on the Case File)
• Re-Appointment of Professor A. John Campbell (8 Oct 2012) (Advising Professor Campbell to return to Cambodia to assess Ieng Sary)
• Preliminary Indication of Individuals to be Heard During Population Movement Trial Segments in Case 002/01 (2 Oct 2012) (Listing the witnesses likely to be heard at that segment of the trial)
• Individuals Sought by the Parties to be Heard at Trial (2 Oct 2012) (Listing the witnesses proposed to be withdrawn, deferred, or added by each party at trial)
• Ieng Sary’s Limited Waiver of Right to be Present During Court Proceedings (2 Oct 2012) (Waiving his right to be present during the testimonies of specified witnesses)
• Ieng Sary’s Request that the Trial Chamber Seek Clarification From the OCIJ as to the Questioning of Witness Norng Sophang on 17 February 2009 and Summon the OCIJ Investigators to Give Evidence Regarding This Interview (27 Sept 2012) (Seeking to clarify information regarding the circumstances of the interview and requesting to place any record of the interview on the Case File)
• Mr. Ieng Sary’s Revocation of Waiver of Right to Be Present for the Testimony of TCW-428 (26 Sept 2012) (Revoking his waiver because of a new document the OCP seeks to introduce)
• Directions to Parties Following Hearing of 21 September 2012 (24 Sept 2012) (Advising the parties that the testimony of two expert witnesses has been deferred and announcing the schedule for the next hearing segment)
• Expert Witness Philip Short (TCE-65) Update (20 Sept 2012) (Stating that expert Philip Short is very busy and would prefer to testify in 2013 and that if a date is not set this week, he will not be able to come at all in 2012)
• Notice of Ieng Sary’s Non-Waiver of Right to be Present During the Proceedings When Philip Short Testifies (19 Sept 2012) (Stating that Ieng Sary does not waive his right to be present during Philip Short’s testimony and that he does not waive his fundamental trial rights)
• Letter from Judge Nil Nonn, President of Trial Chamber to H.E. Director of Khmer-Soviet Friendship Hospital (19 Sept 2012) (Inviting Professor KY Bousuor to come to the Chamber on 21 September 2012 to explain Ieng Sary’s medical condition)
• Letter from Judge Nil Nonn, President of Trial Chamber to H.E. Director of Khmer-Soviet Friendship Hospital (19 Sept 2012) (Inviting Dr. Lim Sivutha to come to the Chamber on 21 September 2012 to explain Ieng Sary’s medical condition)
• Co-Prosecutors’ Response to Khieu Samphan’s ‘Submission in Support of Ieng Sary’s Request that the Trial Chamber Seek Clarification from the OCIJ as to the Existence of any Record Relating to the Questioning of Witness Oeun Tan on 8 October 2008’ (18 Sept 2012) (Requesting the the Chamber dismiss the request for failure to provide any legitimate grounds for the request)
• Ieng Sary’s Limited Waiver of Right to Be Present During Court Proceedings (18 Sept 2012) (Waiving Ieng Sary’s right to be present during the testimony of specifically listed witnesses and only to the extent that the testimony stays in areas anticipated by their statements)
• Co-Prosecutors’ Rule 87(4) Request to Place on the Case File an Audio Recording of a Lecture by Expert Philip Short, and to Use a Video Recording of the Lecture During the Examination of the Expert (17 Sept 2012) (Requesting to use both audio and video recordings of the lecture during the expert’s testimony)
• Ieng Sary’s Rule 87(4) Response to the OCP’s Request to Call TCW-505, TCW-754, TCW-100, TCE-33, TCW-720, TCW-781 and TCW-164 (14 Sept 2012) (Opposing the addition of the new witnesses because the OCP failed to show a compelling justification for any new witness)
• Continued the Adjournment of Hearing on 17 and 18 September 2012 (14 Sept 2012) (Informing the parties that the Chamber will not conduct hearings on those dates due to Ieng Sary’s extended stay in the hospital)
• Hearings Adjourned on 12 and 13 September 2012 (12 Sept 2012) (Informing the parties that the Chamber will not conduct hearings on those two dates because Ieng Sary was admitted to the hospital)
• Submission in Support of Mr. Ieng Sary’s Request that the Trial Chamber Seek Clarification From the OCIJ as to the Existence of Any Record Relating to the Questioning of Witness Oeun Tan on 8 October 2008 (10 Sept 2012) (Expressing support by Khieu Samphan’s Defence for the request and requesting that the Trial Chamber grant Ieng Sary’s request)
• Co-Prosecutors’ Response to Khieu Samphan’s Request to Revise Corroborative Evidence Lists (10 Sept 2012) (Reaffirming that the written statements the Co-Prosecutors wish to put forward meet the requirements of the Chamber and are directly relevant to the issues in Case 002)
• Co-Prosecutors’ Response to ‘Ieng Sary’s Request that the Trial Chamber Seek Clarification from the OCIJ as to the Existence of Any Record Relating to the Questioning of Witness Oeun Tan on 8 October 2008 (7 Sept 2012) (Stating that the Co-Prosecutor’s do not oppose the request but reject most of the reasoning the Defence put forth in support of the request)
• Response by Co-Prosecutors to Rule 87 Requests by Ieng Sary and Nuon Chea to Use Material During the Examination of Philip Short (5 Sept 2012) (Stating that each document should be reviewed for relevant material and that material may be used in the examination of Philip Short)
• Co-Prosecutors’ Response to Ieng Sary’s Request to Hear Evidence from the Interpreter Concerning Witness to Phy Phuon’s Second OCIJ Interview (4 Sept 2012) (Requesting that the Ieng Sary Motion be denied because the matter should have been resolved pre-trial and because the Chamber ruled that audio and video recordings of witnesses are not required by the ECCC)
• Ieng Sary’s Rule 87(4) Request Regarding Material Which May Be Used During the Examination of Expert Philip Short (31 Aug 2012) (Requesting to put a specific article before the Chamber and requesting to use that article in the examination of Philip Short)
• No Hearing on 10 and 11 September (31 Aug 2012) (Informing the parties that the Trial Chamber will not sit on September 10th and 11th)
• Submission in Support of Mr. Ieng Sary’s Request E221, and Request for the Trial Chamber to Order the Co-Prosecutors to Revise the List of Written Statements They are Seeking to Put Before the Chamber in Lieu of Oral Testimony (29 Aug 2012) (Supporting the request to hear evidence from Mr. Phy Phuon surrounding an OCIJ interview).
• Ieng Sary’s Request that the Trial Chamber Seek Clarification from the OCIJ as to the Existence of Any Record Relating to the Questioning of Witness Oeun Tan on 8 October 2008 (29 Aug 2012) (Requesting the Trial Chamber to find out whether any written record of questioning exists because the witness testified that a full day of unrecorded questioning took place before the recorded interview with the same investigators)
• Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyers’ List of Civil Parties to Be Called Concerning Population Movement Phases 1 and 2 in Trial 002/01, Including Confidential Annex 1 (23 Aug 2012) (Submitting a list of the Civil Parties they propose to be called in relation to population movement phases 1 and 2)
• Ieng Sary’s Request to Hear Evidence From the Interpreter Concerning Witness Phy Phuon’s Second OCIJ Interview Whereby Irregularities Occurred Amounting to Subterfuge (23 Aug 2012) (Requesting for the interpreter present at Witness Phy Phuon’s second interview to give evidence at a public hearing as to the circumstances of the interview)
• Ieng Sary’s Motion to Strike ‘Notice of Co-Prosecutors’ Position on Key Issues to Be Discussed at 17 August 2012 Trial Management Meeting’ and its Annex or, In the Alternative, Request to Respond(16 Aug 2012) (Requesting to strike the motion as untimely or, in the alternative, requesting permission to respond should the motion to strike be denied)
• Notice of Co-Prosecutors’ Position on Key Issues to be Discussed at 17 August 2012 Trial Management Meeting (With Confidential Annex A) (15 Aug 2012) (Providing notice of the Co-Prosecutors’ positions regarding key issues that will be discussed at the trial management meeting)
• TC Request for ITU Comments on Khieu Samphan Defence Motion E195 and Envisaged Future Procedures for Correction of Transcripts, E195/1 (15 Aug 2012) (Stating that all identified shortcomings in the French transcripts are in the process of being corrected)
• Nuon Chea Defence Notice to the Trial Chamber Regarding Research at DC-Cam (E211) (13 Aug 2012) (Stating that there has never been any prohibition on reviewing information that is public and that the Chamber will not revisit general issues of the origin and custody of DC-Cam documents)
• Upcoming Trial Management Meeting (10 Aug 2012) (Outlining the Defence’s concerns and requests with regards to the upcoming trial management meeting)
• Next Witnesses in Current Segment of Case 002/01 (7 Aug 2012) (Outlining the order in which the next batch of witnesses will be called)
• Scheduling of Trial Management Meeting to Enable Planning of the Remaining Trial Phases in Case 002/01 and Implementation of Further Measures Designed to Promote Trial Efficiency (3 Aug 2012) (Outlining the issues the Chamber intends to discuss at the Trial Management meeting along with the Chamber’s proposed solutions to any issues it sees)
• Annex: Co-Prosecutors’ Proposed Extension of Scope of Trial in Case 002/1 (E163) (3 Aug 2012) (Providing an analysis of the requested extensions that should guide the discussion at the Trial Management meeting, agreeing that some extension may be relevant but cautioning its potential effect on a speedy trial)
• Response to Outstanding Request in E216 (31 July 2012) (Rejecting the request to put the thesis of witness TCW-694 before the chamber in its entirety and instead placing six short extracts from the document into the Case File)
• Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyers’ Response to the Decision on the Co-Prosecutors’ Rule 92 Submission Regarding the Admission of Written Statements and Other Documents Before the Trial Chamber (E96/7), and to Memorandum E208/3, Including Confidential Annexes 1 and 2 (27 July 2012) (Requesting the Trial Chamber to note that civil party applications are different from written witness statements and cannot be subject to a prior restriction)
• Co-Prosecutors’ Further Request to Put Before the Chamber Written Statements and Transcripts with Confidential Annexes 1 to 16 (27 July 2012) (Requesting to put relevant written statements and information before the chamber in order to expedite trial and give the Chamber relevant information it would not hear orally otherwise)
• Co-Prosecutors’ Request to Admit Witness Statements Relevant to Population Movement Phases 1 and 2 (E208 and E208/2) and Ieng Sary Response (E208/1) (19 July 2012) (Requesting all parties to indicate which documents they propose to give in relation to the population movement phase 1 and 2 by 27 July 2012)
• Permitted Form of Assurances of Non-Prosecution (19 July 2012) (Stating the Witness and Expert Support Section can begin to supply Civil Parties with assurances of non-prosecution in accordance with the procedures set forth)
• Summons-Expert (8 June 2012) (Summoning Expert David Chandler to court on 16 July 2012)
• Response of Your Letter of 21 June 2012 Concerning the Trial Chamber’s Decision on Ieng Sary’s Rule 87(4) (E172/24/2/1) (16 July 2012) (Stating that the documents described in the motion are available to the parties contrary to what was suggested in the decision)
• Response to Nuon Chea’s Request for a Public Oral Hearing Regarding the Calling of Defence Witnesses (5 July 2012) (Submitting that a public hearing is not necessary and that the Trial Chamber can just issue a written decision on the selection of witnesses and experts proposed by the Defence)
• Co-Prosecutors’ Request to Admit Witness Statements Relevant to Phase 2 of the Population Movement and Other Evidentiary Issues with Confidential Annexes I, II, III and Public Annex IV (5 July 2012) (Requesting that the Trial Chamber admit witness statements into evidence and rely on those statements in determining the charges of the accused persons in Case 002)
• Co-Prosecutors’ Request to Provide Case File 002 Documents to Professor David Chandler (4 July 2012) (Requesting that the Trial Chamber send David Chandler the documents they would like him to receive)
• Ieng Sary’s Second Rule 87(4) Request Regarding Material Which May Be Used During the Examination of Expert David Chandler (27 June 2012) (Requesting to put forward additional material to be used when questioning expert David Chandler)
• Ieng Sary’s Response to the Co-Prosecutors’ Request to Admit Witness Statements Relevant to Phase 1 of the Population Movement (27 June 2012) (Stating that the defence intends to object to many of the witness statements put forward by the OCP)
• Co-Prosecutors’ Response to Ieng Sary’s Request for a Trial Management Meeting to Discuss the Possibility of Implementing Remote Access to the S-Drive (20 June 2012) (Supporting the motion and requesting that the Trial Chamber schedule a formal trial management meeting to discuss the matter)
• Response to Co-Prosecutors’ Request to Provide Case File 002 Documents to Experts and Ieng Sary’s Rule 87(4) Request Regarding Material to Be Used During the Examination of Expert David Chandler (E172/24/2 and E172/24/3) (21 June 2012)(Granting the Co-Prosecutors’ motion to grant access of relevant material to experts before their testimony and admitting certain documents and rejecting others with connection to the questioning of David Chandler)
• Ieng Sary’s Response to Co-Prosecutors’ Request for Leave to Provide Assurances with Respect to Non-Prosecution for Witnesses (20 June 2012) (Stating the request seeks to improperly and falsely communicate with witnesses about non-prosecution assurances and requesting that the Trial Chamber reject the request)
• Assurance Regarding Non-Prosecution (19 June 2012) (Informing a witness that the ECCC Co-Prosecutors will not initiate any prosecutions against them)
• Trial Chamber Response to Co-Prosecutors’ Request for Leave to Provide Assurances with Respect to Non-Prosecution for Witnesses (E200) (19 June 2012) (Supporting the Co-Prosecutors’ initiative to the extent it provides assurances of non-prosecution before the ECCC to witnesses)
• Co-Prosecutors’ Request to Admit Witness Statements Relevant to Phase 1 of the Population Movement (15 June 2012) (Requesting to admit certain witness statements into evidence relating to the forced movement of the population)
• Next Witnesses in Current Segment of Case 002/01 (15 June 2012) (Providing additional information about the order of the next round of witnesses to be called at the current trial session)
• Ieng Sary’s Request for a Formal Trial Management Meeting to Discuss the Possibility of Implementing Remote Access to the S-Drive (14 June 2012) (Requesting a meeting at the earliest opportunity to discuss remote access on the record)
• Ieng Sary’s Rule 87(4) Request Regarding Material Which May Be Used During the Examination of Expert David Chandler (13 June 2012) (Requesting to put material before the court to be used during the examination of David Chandler)
• Request for Authority to Provide Case File 002 Documents to Expert Witnesses (13 June 2012) (Requesting the Trial Chamber release select confidential documents to the experts in Case 002)
• Notice to Parties Regarding Revised Modalities of Questioning and Response to Co-Prosecutors’ Request for Clarification Regarding the Use of Documents During Witness Testimony (E201) (13 June 2012) (Stating that when a witness recalls their statement to the OCIJ, the parties shall not continually request the witness to confirm that fact or make the witness merely repeat contents of their statement and should focus instead on other questions)
• Proposed Testimony of Benedict Kiernan Before the Trial Chamber (13 June 2012) (Deciding not to hear the Professor’s testimony because they could not schedule a time for him to testify in person)
• Decision on Placement of New Documents on the Case File (8 June 2012) (Placing 18 new documents onto the Case File)
• Directions Regarding Documents Sought for Impeachment Purposes (24 May 2012) (Stating that any document the parties intend to use before the chamber must satisfy Internal Rule 87(3) and, if the parties intend to use a new document, they must follow procedure to place that document before the Chamber).
• Hearing on 17 October 2012 (25 May 2012) (Stating the Chamber will sit on that date to hear the testimony of Elizabeth Becker).
• Updated Information Regarding Scheduling of Proposed Experts(25 May 2012) (Giving the updated schedule for expert testimony).
• Co-Prosecutors’ Request for Clarification Regarding the Use of Documents During Witness Testimony (30 May 2012) (Requesting clarification on the use of documents by witnesses in the Chamber and the use of documents previously unseen by witnesses).
• Co-Prosecutors’ Request for Leave to Provide Assurances with Respect to Non-Prosecution for Witnessess (30 May 2012) (Requesting that the Trial Chamber allow the Co-Prosecutors to provide assurances to witnesses).
• Ieng Sary’s Expedited Request for Extension of Time to Respond to Co-Prosecutors’ Request for Leave to Provide Assurances with Respect to Non-Prosecution for Witnesses (31 May 2012) (Requesting an extension of time because the Co-Prosecutors’ request presents in depth legal issues and the defence team has a few procedural hurdles).
• Invitation (22 May 2012) (Formally requesting Dr. Lim Sivutha’s presence in court to explain Ieng Sary’s condition)
• Invitation for Dr. Lim Sivutha, Head of the Emergency Section, Khmer-Soviet Friendship Hospital, to Explain Before the Trial Chamber at the ECCC’s Courtroom in the Morning of Wednesday, 23 May 2012 (22 May 2012) (Inviting the physician to the Trial Chamber to explain Ieng Sary’s medical state and comment on whether Ieng Sary can participate in the hearing)
• Report Concerning Mr. Ieng Sary’s Health Condition (22 May 2012) (Informing the court of Ieng Sary’s acute bronchitis and brief hospital visit)
• Report Concerning Mr. Ieng Sary’s Health Condition (22 May 2012) (Informing the court of Ieng Sary’s acute bronchitis and brief hospital visit)
• Ieng Sary’s Rule 34 Application for Disqualification of Judge Silvia Cartwright or, In the Alternative, Request for Instruction and Order to Cease and Desist from Ex Parte Communications & Request for Disclosure of Ex Parte Communications (27 Apr 2012) (Requesting the disqualification of Judge Cartwright due to her continued communications with the International Co-Prosecutor or, in the alternative, requesting a cease and desist order)
• Co-Prosecutors’ Motion for the Prioritisation of Testimonies of Elderly Witnesses (24 Apr 2012) (Requesting that the Trial Chamber give scheduling priority to the testimony of any witnesses over 70 as well as any witnesses suffering from health conditions)
• Co-Prosecutors’ Request to Disclose Unredacted Record of Soas Interview of Witness TCW-504 (19 Apr 2012) (Requesting that the unredacted version of the document be placed on the Case File)
• [Corrected] Further Information Regarding Scheduling of Proposed Experts (11 Apr 2012) (Providing information concerning the scheduling of proposed witnesses and experts for the first trial in Case 002)
• Initial Specification of the Substance of the Awards that the Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyers Intend to Seek-Hearing of 19 October 2011 (12 Mar 2012) (Detailing specifications, questions, concerns, problems and thoughts of the Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyers)
• Revised Order of Witnesses for Current Segment of Case 002/01 (28 Mar 2012) (Informing the parties that witnesses who will be giving testimony on communication structures will now be heard at the end of the current trial segment)
• Documents Referenced on the Case File for Case 002/19-09-2007-ECCC/TC (27 Mar 2012) (Asking the parties to re-locate and re-send specific documents)
• Addendum to Ieng Sary’s Response to the Co-Prosecutors’ Notice to the Trial Chamber and Parties Regarding Testimony of TCE-38 and TCE-44 (15 Mar 2012) (Filing an annex of decisions from international tribunals concerning video-link testimony)
• Lead Co-Lawyers Observations on the Co-Prosecutors Notice to the Trial Chamber and Parties Regarding Testimony of TCE-38 (14 Mar 2012) (Requesting that the Trial Chamber question the witness through video-link if necessary and notify and inform the witness of what will be expected)
• Addendum to Ieng Sary Defence Oral Submissions of 15 March 2012 (15 Mar 2012) (Attaching the two Haradinaj transcripts that were discussed during oral submissions)
• Lessons Learned From the Experiences of the Elders of Former Generations (21 Mar 2012) (Giving Kaing Guek Eav’s written statement in Case 002)
• Order to Bring (16 Mar 2012) (Ordering Duch to be brought to the main court room of the ECCC on 20 March 2012 at 8:30 A.M. to be questioned by the court)
• Order to Bring (13 Mar 2012) (Ordering Duch to be brought to the main court room of the ECCC on 19 March 2012 at 1:30 P.M. to be questioned by the court)
• Ieng Sary’s Response to the Co-Prosecutors’ Notice to the Trial Chamber and Parties Regarding Testimony of TCE-38 and TCE-44(9 Mar 2012) (Stating that if TCE-38 testifies via video link, it would violate the Accused’s right to confront the witness and agreeing with the OCP that TCE-44 should not be compelled to testify as a witness)
• List of Defence Team Members (6 Mar 2012) (Providing the most up-to-date list of all Defence Team Members)
• Notice of Change to Defence Team Members List (6 Mar 2012) (Noting the arrival of an Intern and the departure of two other Interns)
• Updated Memorandum for Next Document Hearing (12-19 March 2012) (2 Mar 2012) (Clarifying what categories of documents the Chamber will address in oral hearings scheduled for those dates)
• Reclassification of Statements for Witnesses Who May Testify in Case 002 (29 Feb 2012) (Stating that each statement of the 29 witnesses in Case 002 has been classified as confidential in order to allow the parties to gain access to the statements before the individuals are heard in court)
• Further Oral Hearing on Documents (Commencing 12 March 2012) (24 Feb 2012) (Stating that beginning 12 March 2012 the Trial Chamber will allow time for the oral objection of the listed categories of documents which have not yet been discussed)
• Request for Information Concerning Summaries on Case File 002 (23 Feb 2012) (Asking TCE-33 to indicate pertinent information concerning prepared summaries including whether TCE-33 was the author of the documents, why the summaries were prepared, and the location and availability of the summaries)
• Co-Prosecutors’ Request for Further Document Hearings (16 Feb 2012) (Requesting that the Trial Chamber schedule a hearing on the admissibility of documents listed in Annexes 6-20 of the Co-Prosecutors’ First Phase Document List and schedule a hearing on the presentation of documents relating to administrative and communications structures)
• List of Reserve Lead Co-Lawyers (15 Feb 2012) (Submitting a list of reserve Lead Co-Lawyers in case both Lead Co-Lawyers are unable to perform their duties)
• Next Group of Witnesses, Civil Parties and Experts to Be Heard in Case 002/01 (17 Feb 2012) (Stating that the Chamber will discuss remaining documents to be put before it and then will commence questioning of the Accused, then witnesses, Civil Parties, and experts)
• List of Defence Team Members (10 Feb 2012) (Providing the most up-to-date list of all Defence Team Members)
• Co-Prosecutors’ Response to the Trial Chamber ‘Request for Information Concerning Summaries Prepared by TC-33’ (17 Feb 2012) (Stating that the two documents in question are IS 11.1 and IS 11.5 and that the Co-Prosecutors are unaware of any other documents prepared by TC-33 that are not in the case file)
• Ieng Sary’s Motion to Strike Co-Prosecutors’ Leave to Reply and Reply to Ieng Sary’s Response Regarding Additional Crime Sites Within the Scope of Trial in Case 002/01 (10 Feb 2012) (Stating the the Co-Prosecutors violated the Trial Chamber’s express direction that replies cannot be filed without having obtained leave of the Chamber first)
• Co-Prosecutor’s Response to Ieng Sary’s Request for Clarification That No Adverse Inferences Can Be Drawn From an Accused’s Silence When He Exercises His Right to Remain Silent (10 Feb 2012) (Stating that the OCP affirms and endorses the fundamental right to remain silent before the Chamber)
• List of Defence Team Members (8 Feb 2012) (Providing the most up-to-date list of each Defence Team Member)
• Notice of Change to Defence Team Members List (8 Feb 2012) (Announcing recent arrivals and departures to the Defence Team)
• Scheduling of Oral Hearing on Documents (13-16 February 2012) (9 Feb 2012) (Providing relevant information in advance of the documentary hearings of 13-16 February 2012)
• Request for Information Concerning Summaries Prepared by TCE-33 (9 Feb 2012) (Requesting that the Co-Prosecutors provide the reference for documents prepared by TCE-33 and to inform the Chamber if there are any other documents prepared by TCE-33 on the case file)
• Co-Prosecutors’ Leave to Reply and Reply to Ieng Sary’s Response Regarding Additional Crime Sites Within the Scope of Trial in Case 002/1  (8 Feb 2012) (Requesting leave to reply because the Defence made serious misrepresentations which may mislead the Chamber and seeking to reaffirm the request to extend the scope of trial in Case 002/1)
• Hearing of TCE-38 and TCE-44 (6 Feb 2012) (Stating that the Trial Chamber has been unable to confirm the availability of TCE-38 and TCE-44 and that the individuals therefore will not be heard by the Trial Chamber during the current session)
• Official Holidays for 2012 (1 Dec 2011) (Listing all of the official holidays in 2012 for all of the ECCC/UNAKRT staff)
• Judicial Recesses During 2012 (6 Feb 2012) (Listing all of the planned Judicial Recesses for 2012 and informing the parties that the Court Management Section will not accept any documents for filing but that time limits will continue to run during the recesses)
• Ieng Sary’s Response to the Co-Prosecutors’ Request to Include Additional Crime Sites Within the Scope of Trial in Case 002/01 (3 Feb 2012) (Requesting that the Trial Chamber dismiss the Co-Prosecutors’ request because it is an attempt by the Co-Prosecutors to get the Trial Chamber to reconsider the severance order)
• International Co-Prosecutor’s Disclosure to Trial Chamber of Case 002 Witness Statements in Cases 003 and 004 in Compliance with Trial Chamber Memorandum E127/4 (2 Feb 2012) (Filing all statements made by 29 witnesses contained in Case Files 003 and 004 per the Chamber’s order)
• Trial Chamber Response to Portions of E114, E114/1, E131/1/9, E131/6, E136, and E158 (31 Jan 2012) (Laying out the Oral Decision regarding standards of relevance, reliability and authenticity in the application of Internal Rule 87 as the Trial Chamber’s official response to the portions of the Motions listed above)
• Ieng Sary’s Request for Clarification that No Adverse Inferences Can Be Drawn from An Accused’s Silence When He Exercises His Right to Remain Silent (31 Jan 2012) (Requesting clarification as to whether any adverse inferences can and will be drawn from an Accused who exercises his right to remain silent in light of comments and actions from the Trial Chamber)
• Ieng Sary’s Notice Attaching Decisions Referred to at the Document Objections Hearing 16-19 January 2012 (23 Jan 2012) (Attaching decisions referred to by Ieng Sary’s lawyer at the document objections hearing so that the Trial Chamber and parties may have easy access to the referred decisions)
• Co-Prosecutors’ Response to Nuon Chea Defence Request for a List of Documents Provided by DC-Cam That Are Contained in the OCP Rule 80 (3) First Phase Document List With Confidential Annexes A & B (23 Jan 2012) (Providing the parties and the Trial Chamber with the list of 2384 documents provided by the DC-Cam which are contained in the Co-Prosecutors Rule 80(3) First Phase Document List)
• Ieng Sary Defence Team Re: Letter of Authorization (20 Jan 2012) (Authorizing Ieng Sary’s Lawyers to file an Appeal against the Trial Chamber’s Decision Refusing his Request for the Trial Chamber to Direct its Senior Legal Officer to Maintain Open and Transparent Communication with All the Parties)
• Reclassification of Strictly Confidential Documents in Case File 002 (12 Jan 2012) (Listing some of the documents that will be reclassified as public)
• Reclassification of Additional Documents on the Case File (12 Jan 2012) (Stating that the Trial Chamber has reviewed the remaining strictly confidential documents in the Case File and determined that an additional 135 documents should be reclassified as confidential or public)
• >[Corrected 1] Scheduling of Oral Hearing on Documents (16-19 January 2012) (11 Jan 2012) (Stating that the Trial Chamber shall devote 16-19 of January to in-court consideration of documentary issues)
• Ieng Sary Letter of Authorization (5 Jan 2012) (Authorizing Ieng Sary’s Co-Lawyers to file an Appeal against the Trial Chamber’s Decision on Motions for the disqualification of Judge Cartwright)
• Ieng Sary’s Objections to the Admission of Certain OCP Documents for the First Four Trial Segments (5 Jan 2012) (Requesting that the Trial Chamber reject the documents listed in the annexes from the first four trial segments)
• Ieng Sary Letter of Authorization (5 Jan 2012) (Authorizing Ieng Sary’s Co-Lawyers to file an appeal against the Trial Chamber’s decision denying his presence in the courtroom and denying his right to assist in his own defence)
• Co-Prosecutors’ Rule 92 Submission Regarding Indicia of Reliability of the 978 Documents Listed in Connection with Those Witnesses and Experts Who May Be Called During the First Three Weeks of Trial (23 Dec 2011) (Requesting the trial chamber have regard to the indicia of reliability for the 978 documents and then admit all to the Document List)
• Ieng Sary Request that the Trial Chamber Direct the Senior Legal Officer to Maintain Open and Transparent Communication With All Parties Concerning Trial Management Issues (E154) (20 Dec 2011) (Stating that the communication in question was appropriately directed to the relevant parties and that future motions of this type will not receive a response from the Chamber)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Judicial Recess During Christmas and New Year Period (20 Dec 2011) (Advising the parties that it will take a recess from 26 Dec 2011 – 3 Jan 2011 and that it will not accept any documents for filing during that time)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Translation Requests in Support of Nuon Chea Motion E142 and Ieng Sary Letter to the Trial Chamber Senior Legal Officer of 11 December 2011 (E142/1) (20 Dec 2011) (Advising it will only entertain allegations of inconsistency between audio recordings and written statements when the inconsistencies are identified with specific particularity and refer to discrepancies on the substance that could have a clear relevance to the ongoing trial and that translation requests should identify and be limited to the portions of the recordings and statements that are inconsistent)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Objections to the Admission of Certain Documents Contained in the Footnotes of the Closing Order Paragraphs Read Out in Court (16 Dec 2011) (Objecting to some of the documents set forth in the footnotes of the Closing Order and stating that the parties have not had sufficient time to object to these documents).
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Partial Support to the Co-Prosecutors’ Trial Management Request (16 Dec 2011) (Supporting the first request in its entirety, taking no position with regard to the second request and partial supporting the third request but noting that one week might not be enough time)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Objections to the Admission of Certain OCP Documents for the First Trial Segment (16 Dec 2011) (Objecting to the admissibility of certain OCP documents for the first trial segment)
• Ieng Sary, TC, OCP’s ‘Consolidated Response to Objections to Co-Prosecutors’ Document List for First Trial Session’ (E131/19) and Ieng Sary’s Objections to OCP and Civil Party Documents (9 Dec 2011) (Requesting that the OCP response be rejected)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Transcripts of Witness Interviews (11 Dec 2011) (Requesting that the Trial Chamber direct CMS to provide fill transcripts for each OCIJ interview conducted with the witnesses scheduled to testify in Case 002)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Request for Clarification Concerning Trial Chamber’s Procedure for Considering Motions (1 Dec 2011) (Requesting clarification of the Trial Chamber’s procedure for deciding applications and motions)
• Ieng Sary, TC, The Accused Ieng Sary’s Waiver of Rights to Be Present During Court Proceedings (13 Dec 2011) (Waiving his right to be present during the court proceedings)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Co-Prosecutors’ Trial Management Request (14 Dec 2011) (Requesting the Trial Chamber to set down a tentative order of call for all remaining witnesses and civil parties in relation to the first segment of the first trial, to withdraw one expert and four witnesses primarily related to the Accused Ieng Thirith, and to allocate a week of hearings for the purpose of oral argument on the admissibility of documents for five days during 6 to 9 February 2012)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Request for the Trial Chamber to Direct the Trial Chamber Senior Legal Officer to Maintain Open and Transparent Communication with All Parties Concerning Trial Management Issues (14 Dec 2011) (Requesting open and transparent communication because the Trial Chamber Senior Legal Officer has been engaging in ex parte communication with select parties concerning matters which are of importance to all parties)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Response to Issues Raised by Parties in Advance of Trial and Scheduling of Informal Meeting with Senior Legal Officer on 18 November 2011 (17 Nov 2011) (Addressing remaining issues that the parties felt requiered resolution before the hearing of the substance in Case 002)
• Ieng Sary, TC, List of Defence Team Members (9 Dec 2011) (Giving an up-to-date list of all Defence Team Members)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Consolidated Response to Objections to Co-Prosecutors’ Document List for First Trial Session (1 Dec 2011) (Arguing that the general objections put forward by the Defence are ill-founded and requesting the Trial Chamber to direct the Defence to re-file specific objections, if any, to the Co-Prosecutors’ Document list and to admit documents which are not the subject of specific and reasoned objections)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Response to Ieng Sary Defence Letter of 1 December 2011 (6 Dec 2011) (Stating that where matters are urgent, the Trial Chamber decides expeditiously and that the Chamber may also in its discretion determine that replies to responses by the parties are unlikely to materially advance the Chamber’s understanding of particular issues and decide that a reply might not be authorized)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Notice of Variation of Order of Call of Civil Parties and Witnesses for First Trial Session (5-16 December 2011) and Further Information Related to Hearing of Evidence During this Session (E131/1.2) (2 Dec 2011) (Providing notice that the Trial chamber intends to change the order of witnesses to be called and to provide the parties with information regarding the hearing of the first Civil Parties and witnesses in Case 002/01)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Co-Prosecutors’ Joint Response to: 1) Nuon Chea’s Urgent Application for Disqualification of Judge Cartwright; and 2) Ieng Sary’s Request for Investigation Concerning Ex Parte Communications Between the International Co-Prosecutor, Judge Cartwright and Others (1 Dec 2011) (Requesting that the Trial Chamber dismiss the Nuon Chea Application and the Ieng Sary Request as inadmissible, manifestly unfounded, dilatory and/or not in the interests of justice)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Co-Prosecutors’ Request for Investigation into Witness Deaths (E144) (1 Dec 2011) (Directing WESU to conduct enquiries into the discrepancies in Death Certificates and interviews with trial witnesses and to determine whether these witnesses are in fact deceased)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Notice of Trial Chamber’s Disposition of Remaining Pre-Trial Motions (E20, E132, E134, E135, E124/8, E124/9, E124/10, E136 and E139) and Further Guidance to the Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyers (29 Nov 2011) (Stating the document E141 constitutes the final response to the above motions and that per Internal Rule 89ter the Trial Chamber has a discretionary trial management competence that is without right of appeal)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Response to Ieng Sary Defence Request for Access to Strictly Confidential Documents on the Case File (E118) (28 Nov 2011) (Stating that all Medical Documents and WESU risk assessments will remain confidential and ordering a reassessment and reclassification of Civil Party applications and complaints and other documents that have not been identified as relevant to Case 002 because some might no longer be strictly confidential)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Advance Notice of Assignment of Examination of Four Witnesses During First Trial Segment (5-16 December 2011) (28 Nov 2011) (Assigning to the Co-Prosecutors the examination of the four witnesses and stating that the examination shall be limited to the relevant facts)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Provision of Prior Statements to Witnesses in Advance of Testimony at Trial (24 Nov 2011) (Providing guidelines regarding the scope and purpose of providing witnesses with the opportunity to review their prior statements in advance of their testimony)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Request for Investigation Concerning Ex Parte Communications Between the International Co-Prosecutor, Judge Cartwright and Others (24 Nov 2011) (Requesting an investigation of all ex parte communications between the International Co-Prosecutor, Judge Cartwright and others so that full disclosure of such communications is made and requesting Judge Cartwright to respectfully recuse herself from the proceedings of Case 002 until this request is decided)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Advance Notice of Assignment of Examination of Three Civil Parties during First Trial Segment (5-16 December 2011) (23 Nov 2011) (Assigning the primary responsibility for the examination of the three Civil Parties to the Civil Party Lead Co-Laywers)
• Ieng Sary, TC, List of Defence Team Members (22 Nov 2011) (Listing the names of all Defence Team Members)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Notice of Change to Defence Team Members List(22 Nov 2011) (Noting all recent changes to the Defence Teams)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Response to Ieng Sary Defence Letter Requesting Courtesy Copies (21 Nov 2011) (Providing copies of the sources cited in the Trial Chamber’s Decision on Co-Prosecutors’ Request to Exclude Armed Conflict Nexus Requirement from the Definition of Crimes Against Humanity)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Trial Chamber Response to Lead Co-Lawyers and Civil Party Lawyers’ Request to Make a Brief Preliminary Remarks on Behalf of Civil Parties (E131/4) (15 Nov 2011) (Rejecting the request to make a brief preliminary remark on the views and concerns of the Civil Parties)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Co-Prosecutors’ Objections to Parties’ Proposed Document Lists for First Three Weeks of Trial (14 Nov 2011) (Stating the Co-Prosecutors do not object to the proposed documents on the lists of Ieng Sary, Khieu Samphan, Ieng Thirith or the Civil Party and that they reserve their position with respect to proposed new documents included on any of the lists)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Request to Stay the Commencement of the Trial Proceedings Until the Final Determination of Ieng Sary’s Preliminary Objections Regarding the Royal Pardon and Amnesty and Ne Bis In Idem: Table of Authorities (4 Nov 2011) (Listing the authorities relied upon for the above request)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Request to Stay the Commencement of the Trial Proceedings Until the Final Determination of Ieng Sary’s Preliminary Objections Regarding the Royal Pardon and Amnesty and Ne Bis In Idem (4 Nov 2011) (Requesting the Trial Chamber stay the commencement of the Trial Proceedings until the Supreme Court Chamber determines whether issues of the Royal Pardon and Amnesty and/or ne bis in idem prohibit the prosecution of Ieng Sary in the ECCC)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Judicial Recess During the Water Festival Period (2 Nov 2011) (Informing the parties that the Trial Chamber will recess during the Water Festival and will not accept any documents for filing during that time)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Notice of Change to Defence Team Members List (2 Nov 2011) (Listing the departure of some defence members and the arrival of others)
• Ieng Sary, TC, List of Defence Team Members (2 Nov 2011) (Listing the defence team members for each of the accused in Case 002)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Co-Prosecutors’ Notification of Documents to Be Put Before the Chamber in Connection With Those Witnesses and Experts Who May Be Called During the First Three Weeks of Trial with Confidential Annex A (1 Nov 2011) (Notifying the Trial Chamber they will seek to admit documents identified in Annex A in connection with the parties called to testify in the first three weeks of trial)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Document List for the First Trial Segment (1 Nov 2011) (Submitting Ieng Sary’s document list in connection to the witnesses to be called during the first trial segment)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Civil Parties List of Documents Relevant to the Initial Trial Session (28 November- 16 December 2011) (28 Oct 2011) (Requesting that the Trial Chamber file a corrigendum listing the entirety of the documents filed for the first four segments and to admit all the annexes of E109/2)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Civil Parties Request for a Trial Management Meeting and Regular Trial Status Meetings for Case 002 and for Clarification on Trial Scheduling and Preparation (28 Oct 2011) (Requesting the Trial Chamber schedule a Trial Management Meeting before Nov. 21st and that the chamber respond to any questions presented in the document before the commencement of trial)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Notice to the Trial Chamber That He Will Not Testify During Trial (24 Oct 2011) (Notifying the Trial Chamber that he will not testify or answer any questions put to him during any trial or mini-trial in Case 002)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Annex: Mr. Ieng Sary’s Notice to the Trial Chamber That He Will Not Testify (24 Oct 2011) (Asserting his right to remain silent at every stage of the proceedings)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Support to the Co-Prosecutors’ Request for a Trial Management Meeting and Regular Trial Status Meetings for Case 002 (24 Oct 2011) (Supporting the Co-Prosectuors request for a trial management meeting and regular trial status meetings for Case 002)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Co-Prosecutor’s Request for a Trial Management Meeting and Regular Trial Status Meetings for Case 002 (21 Oct 2011) (Requesting that the Trial Chamber schedule a trial management meeting and weekly trial status meetings to allow for the parties to communicate regularly)
• Lead Co-Lawyers and Civil Party Lawyers Request for Reconsideration of the Terms of the Severance Order E124 (18 Oct 2011) (Requesting the Trial Chamber reconsider its severance order and grant the opportunity to debate the issue in a public hearing in the interests of justice)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Response to the Co-Prosectuors’ Request for Reconsideration of ‘Severance Order Pursuant to Internal Rule 89ter’ (13 Oct 2011) (Submitting that while reconsideration is permissible, (1) severance must be consistent with 89ter, (2) guidance on severance cannot be taken from the ICTY, (3) the OCP has not demonstrated that the Severance Order is not in the interests of justice and (4) OCP’s alternative severance plan will not lead to a speedy trial)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Lead Co-Lawyers Urgent Request on the 19 October 2011 Hearing Following the Chambers’ Memorandum E125 (7 Oct 2011) (Requesting the Trial Chamber postpone the 19 October 2011 hearing)
• Ieng Sary, TC, International Co-Prosecutors’ Disclosure to Trial Chamber Regarding Interviews of Case 002 Witnesses in Cases 003 and 004 with Strictly Confidential Annex A (6 Oct 2011) (Seeking direction from the Trial Chamber with regards to interviews conducted of Case 002 witnesses in the judicial investigations of Case 003 and Case 004)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Co-Prosecutors’ Request for Leave to Reply and Reply to Ieng Sary’s Response Regarding the Intentions of the Accused with Respect to Testifying (3 Oct 2011) (Seeking leave to reply to ‘Ieng Sary’s Response to the Co-Prosecutors’ Additional Request for a Direction Regarding the Intentions of the Accused with Respect to Testifying’)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Co-Prosecutors Joint Response to ‘Ieng Sary’s Request for Access to Strictly Confidential Documents on the Case File’ and ‘Ieng Thirith Defence Motion Supporting in Part ‘Ieng Sary’s
  Request for Access to Strictly Confidential Documents on the Case File (3 Oct 2011) (Asking the Trial Chamber to dismiss the request insofar as it relates to all strictly confidential documents and that the Trial Chamber issue protective orders and redact confidential material with regards to documents that may be viewed)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Co-Prosecutors’ Request for Reconsideration of ‘Severance Order Pursuant to Internal Rule 89ter (3 Oct 2011) (Requesting that the Trial Chamber revise its order and arguing that the current order needs to be reformulated in the interest of justice)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Conditional Support to the Co-Prosecutors’ Notice of Request for Reconsideration of the Terms of ‘Severance Order Pursuant to Internal Rule 98ter (3 Oct 2011) (Conditionally supporting the Co-Prosecutors’ request for reconsideration of the severance order and requesting sufficient time for the parties to examine and respond to the Co-Prosecutors’ recommendations)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Co-Prosecutors’ Consolidated Reply to Defense Responses to Co-Prosecutors’ Requests to Re-characterize Charges in the Indictment and to Exclude the Nexus Requirement for an Armed Conflict to Prove Crimes Against Humanity (11 Aug 2011) (Asking the Trial Chamber to grant their request and, in doing so, reject defense’s argument that excluding the nexus requirement would violate the principle of legality)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Co-Prosecutors’ Reply to the Responses Regarding the Admission of Written Witness Statements Before the Trial Chamber (10 Aug 2011) (Responding to defense’s opposition to the OCP’s motion to allow the submission of written witness statements at trial
• Ieng Sary, TC, Joint Response of Ieng Sary, Ieng Thirith and Nuon Chea on Co-Prosecutors’ Submission on Statute of Limitations for National Crimes (17 Jun 2011) (Requesting the Trial Chamber to reject the submission)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Co-Prosecutors’ Request for the Trial Chamber to Consider JCE III as an Alternative Mode of Liability (17 Jun 2011)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Co-Prosecutors’ Request for the Trial Chamber to Recharacterize the Facts Establishing the Conduct of Rape as the Crime Against Humanity of Rape Rather than the Crime Against Humanity of Other Inhumane Acts (16 Jun 2011)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Co-Prosecutors’ Request for the Trial Chamber to Exclude the Armed Conflict Nexus Requirement from the Definition of Crimes Against Humanity (15 Jun 2011)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Co-Prosecutors’ Combined Response to Ieng Sary’s Supplements to His Rule 89 Objection (Ne Bis In Idem and Royal Pardon and Amnesty) (7 Jun 2011) (Requesting the Trial Chamber to reject the appeals)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Co-Prosecutors’ Joint Response to Ieng Sary’s “Motion to Add New Trial Topics to the Trial Schedule” and Nuon Chea’s “Motion in Support of Ieng Sary’s Motion to Add New Trial Topics to the Trial Schedule and Request to Add Additional Topics” (6 Jun 2011) (Requesting the Trial Chamber to reject the requests and, in any event, provide as much advanced notice as possible to the parties regarding the trial schedule)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Supplement to His Rule 89 Preliminary Objection (Ne Bis In Idem) (27 May 2011) (Requesting the Trial Chamber to find that the principle of ne bis in idem precludes prosecution of Ieng Sary at the ECCC)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Co-Prosecutors’ Submission on Statute of Limitations for National Crimes (27 May 2011) (Requesting the Trial Chamber to dismiss all defense appeals related to the statute of limitations for national crimes)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Supplement to His Rule 89 Preliminary Objection (Royal Pardon and Amnesty) (27 May 2011) (Requesting the Trial Chamber to find that Ieng Sary’s royal pardon and amnesty preclude his prosecution at the ECCC)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Motion to Add New Trial Topics to Trial Schedule (23 May 2011) (Requesting various topics be added to the trial schedule)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Co-Prosecutors’ Response to “Ieng Sary’s Observations to the Co-Prosecutors’ Notification of Legal Issues it Intends to Raise at the Initial Hearing” (18 May 2011) (Requesting the Trial Chamber to dismiss Ieng Sary’s motion)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Indication of the Portions of the Pre-Trial Chamber’s Decision on Ieng Sary’s Appeal Against the Closing Order Which Require Supplementary Submissions Related to the Application of International Crimes and Forms of Liability at the ECCC (3 May 2011)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Observations to the Co-Prosecutors’ Notification of Legal Issues it Intends to Raise at the Initial Hearing (3 May 2011) (Requesting the Trial Chamber to block the OCP from raising certain issues at the initial hearing and, instead, to provide their arguments in a written submission)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Motion for All Statements of Kaing Guek Eav Alias “Duch” not to be Admitted as Evidence Unless Duch Appears in Court as a Witness & For Disclosure by the OCP and Trial Chamber of Duch’s Untruthful Statements (26 Apr 2011)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Response to Ieng Sary and Khieu Samphan on Legal Issues Initial Hearing (25 Apr 2011) (Requesting the Trial Chamber to take note of the Civil Parties’ observations regarding arguments defense is likely to raise at the initial hearing)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Co-Prosecutors’ Notification of Legal Issus it Intends to Raise at the Initial Hearing (19 Apr 2011)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Third Initial List of Documents (19 Apr 2011)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Indication of Legal Issues He Intends to Raise at the Initial Hearing (13 Apr 2011)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Co-Prosecutors’ Response to ‘Ieng Sary’s Request for a Direction Stating that Time Limits do not Commence Until Filings are Notified in Both Working Languages of the Defense’ (4 Apr 2011) (Requesting the Trial Chamber to reject the request)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Request for Clarification as to Whether Decisions and Orders are Being Taken by the Full Trial Chamber(31 Mar 2011)
• Ieng Sary,  TC, Ieng Sary’s Motion Against the Taking of Judicial Notice of Adjudicated Facts from Case 001 (28 Mar 2011) (Requesting the Trial Chamber to not take judicial notice of adjudicated facts from Case 001 in Case 002)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Motion Against Facts of Common Knowledge Being Applied in Case 002 (28 Mar 2011) (Requesting the Trial Chamber to not take judicial notice of any facts of common knowledge in Case 002)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Motion Against Facts of Common Knowledge Being Applied in Case 002 (28 Mar 2011) (Requesting the Trial Chamber to not take judicial notice of any facts of common knowledge in Case 002)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Motion Against the Taking of Judicial Notice of Adjudicated Facts from Case 001 (28 Mar 2011) (Requesting the Trial Chamber to not take judicial notice of adjudicated facts from Case 001 in Case 002)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Request for Clarification as to Whether Decisions and Orders are Being Taken by the Full Trial Chamber(31 Mar 2011)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Reply to the Co-Prosecutors’ Joint Response to Ieng Thirith, Ieng Sary and Nuon Chea’s Applications for Disqualification of the Judges (1 Mar 2011) (Requesting disqualification of the Trial Chamber Judges for the appearance of bias)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Co-Prosecutors’ Request for an Extension of Time and Page Limit to Respond to Preliminary Objections of the Accused (1 Mar 2011)  (Requesting an extension  of 20 pages and 14 days  for filing a joint response to all preliminary objections of defense, citing a multitude of objections as their justification)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Summary of Ieng Sary’s Rule 89 Preliminary Objections & Notice of Intent of Noncompliance with Future Informal Memoranda Issued In Lieu of Reasoned Judicial Decisions Subject to Appellate Review (25 Feb 2011) (Stating their preliminary objections and requesting the Trial Chamber to find the ECCC lacks jurisdiction over Ieng Sary)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Motion to Strike Portions of the Closing Order Due to Defects (24 Feb 2011) (Requesting the Trial Chamber to strike portions of the Closing Order, including all references to national crimes, joint criminal enterprise, genocide, command responsibility and persecution as a crime against humanity)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Motion for Civil Parties to Testify Under Oath if They are Permitted to Testify as to Their Knowledge of the Criminal Case (24 Feb 2011)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Reply to the Co-Prosecutors’ Response to Ieng Sary’s Motion Against the Use of Torture Tainted Evidence at Trial (24 Feb 2011) (Responding to the OCP and reiterating their request that the Trial Chamber not consider any evidence obtained by torture, except against persons accused of torture as evidence to show alleged statements were made)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Motion Against the Use of All Material Collected by the Documentation Center of Cambodia (24 Feb 2011) (Opposing the use of material collected by DC-Cam on various grounds, including allegations of bias, and requesting a hearing to consider the matter)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Notice Reserving His Rights to Object to Civil Parties and Defense Teams’ Proposed Witnesses and Experts (24 Feb 2011)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Co-Prosecutors’ Response to Ieng Thirith, Ieng Sary and Nuon Chea’s Applications for Disqualification of the Judges (23 Feb 2011) (Requesting the Trial Chamber to dismiss the applications)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Rule 80 Summaries of Expertise and Qualifications of Each Proposed Expert and Points of the Indictment to Which Each is Expected to Testify (23 Feb 2011)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Co-Prosecutors’ Rule 80 Witness, Civil Party and Expert Summaries (23 Feb 2011)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary Defense Team’s Response to Susan Lamb’s Memorandum Dated 18 February 2011 (21 Feb 2011) (Responding to Lamb’s memo regarding procedures for filing preliminary objections, taking exception with various points raised)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Notification Concerning Objection to OCP Proposed Witnesses (Annexes 3, 3A and 5) (21 Feb 2011) (Reserving the right to object to witnesses listed in Annexes 3, 3A and 5)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Co-Prosecutors’ Response to Ieng Sary’s Motion Against the Use of Torture Tainted Evidence at Trial (21 Feb 2011) (Requesting the Trial Chamber to dismiss the motion as premature)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Motion to Support Ieng Thirith and Nuon Chea’s Applications for Disqualification of the Trial Chamber Judges & Ieng Sary’s Motion to Join Ieng Thirith’s Application for the Trial Chamber to be Replaced – for the Purpose of Adjudicating the Applications – by Reserve Judges of the Trial Chamber or Additional Judges Chosen by the Judicial Administration Committee (17 Feb 2011)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Response to ‘Trial Chambers Amended Procedures for the Filing of Preliminary Objections and Clarification of Envisaged Response Deadlines’ (17 Feb 2011) (Requesting the Trial Chamber to treat each defendant individually and to consider all preliminary objections before reaching any decisions)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Rule 89 Preliminary Objection (Statute of Limitations for Grave Breaches) (14 Feb 2011) (Requesting the Trial Chamber to find that the statute of limitations of the 1956 Penal Code bars application of Article 6 of the ECCC’s Establishment Law)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Rule 89 Preliminary Objection (Rule 89(1)(C)) (14 Feb 2011) (Asking the Trial Chamber to annul its disposition to reject all requests to extend deadlines for trial submissions)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s List of Proposed Experts and Notification Concerning His Witness and Civil Party Lists (14 Feb 2011)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Co-Prosecutors’ Request for Clarification on Procedure for Response to Preliminary Objections (9 Feb 2011) (Requesting clarification on Rule 89(2) procedures)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Response to the Co-Prosecutors’ Motion Which Accompanied Their Rule 80 Expert, Witness and Civil Party Lists (8 Feb 2011) (Opposing the OCP’s motion for certain witness examination procedures on several grounds and requesting a hearing to resolve the issues before trial)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Reply to the Co-Prosecutors’ Response to Ieng Sary’s Motion for the Trial Chamber to Conduct the Trial in Case 002 by Following a Proposed Revised Procedure & Request for an Expedited Stay on the Order to File Materials in Preparation for Trial (8 Feb 2011) (Responding to the OCP and requesting a hearing on the issue)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Urgent Expedited Request to File Preliminary Objections in English with the Khmer Translations to Follow (7 Feb 2011)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Motion Against the Use of Torture Tainted Evidence at Trial (04 Feb 2001) (Asking the Trial Chamber to rule, as a matter of law, that all torture tainted evidence is inadmissible)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Co-Prosecutors’ Observations on Ieng Sary’s Motion to Conduct the Trial Through Half-Day Sessions (01 Feb 2011) (Asking the Trial Chamber to reject the request)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Reply to the OCP’s Response to Ieng Sary’s Expedited Request for the Time Period for Preliminary Objections not to Commence Until the Pre-Trial Chamber has Given Reasons for its Decision on Ieng Sary’s Appeal Against the Closing Order & Expedited Request for Extension of Time and Page Limit to File Rule 89 Preliminary Objections (31 Jan 2011)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Co-Prosecutors’ Response to Ieng Sary’s Expedited Request for the Postponement of the Time Period, Extension of the Time and Page Limits Relating to the Rule 89 Preliminary Objections (25 Jan 2011) (Requesting the Trial Chamber to reject the request for the extension of time and page limits for Rule 89 preliminary objections)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Motion Requesting Guidelines for Civil Party Participation (24 Jan 2011) (Requesting the Trial Chamber to create guidelines for Civil Party participation in Case 002)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Notification to the Trial Chamber’s Greffiers to File and Receive all Documents in Khmer and English(24 Jan 2011) (Notifying the Greffiers that Ieng Sary will file and receive all documents in Khmer and English, pursuant to Articles 2.2 and 7.2 of the Practice Direction for Filing Documents before the ECCC)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Ieng Sary’s Motion to Conduct the Trial Through Half-Day Sessions (19 Jan 2011) (Requesting the trial be conducted in half-day sessions so that Ieng Sary’s health does not prevent him from exercising his right to be present during the proceedings)
• Sixth Investigative Request of Co-Lawyers for Civil Parties Concerning the Charge of Genocide Against the Khmer Nationals(4 Feb 2010) (Requesting investigative action against the accused persons to determine whether the charge of genocide is justified)

Orders, Decisions and Judgments

• Certificate of Death (20 Mar 2013) (Providing Ieng Sary’s death certificate).
• Termination of the Proceedings Against the Accused Ieng Sary(14 Mar 2013) (Deciding that the death of the Accused Ieng Sary terminates all criminal and civil actions against him in the ECCC).
• Postponement of Expert Testimony (6 Mar 2013) (Postponing the questioning of two expert witnesses due to Ieng Sary’s illness and disputes over funds for translators).
• Scheduling of Experts Philip Short and Elizabeth Becker and Postponement of Fact Witnesses Until Decision on Severance (26 Feb 2013) (Stating that the Chamber will still hear Experts Short and Becker in early March but that other witness testimony will be postponed until the decision on severance is made).
• Supplementary Questions to the Parties Following Hearing of 18 February 2013 in Consequence of the Supreme Court Chamber’s Decision on Co-Prosecutors’ Immediate Appeal of the Trial Chamber’s Decision Concerning the Scope of Case 002/01 (E163/5/1/13) (19 Feb 2013) (Requesting that the parties provide information in light of Supreme Court Chamber’s decision).
• Directions to the Parties in Consequences of the Supreme Court Chamber’s Decision on Co-Prosecutors’ Immediate Appeal of the Trial Chamber’s Decision Concerning the Scope of Case 002/01 (E163/5/1/13) (12 Feb 2013) (Scheduling a hearing to address issues raised by the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the scope of the Case)
• Further Information Regarding Trial Scheduling (7 Feb 2013) (Providing scheduling changes and updates for the Trial)
• Response to Co-Prosecutors’ Follow-Up Request to Place on the Case File a Video Recording of a Lecture by Expert Philip Short (E260/1) (31 Jan 2013) (Granting the request to place the video recording on the Case File)
• Revised Schedule for Forthcoming Document Hearings (Commencing Monday 21 January 2013)(17 Jan 2013) (Informing the parties that the Chamber will issue a revised schedule for the document hearings)
• Decision on the Ieng Sary Defence Request to Audio and/or Video Record Ieng Sary in the Holding Cell (16 Jan 2013) (Rejecting the request to audio or video record the Accused in his holding cell)
• Response to Rule 87(4) Requests to Place New Documents on the Case File Concerning the Testimony of Witness Hun Chhunly (E236/3) (15 Jan 2013) (Refusing to admit the document because the Co-Prosecutors did not satisfy the requirement that the document could not have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence)
• Order to Bring (20 Dec 2012) (Ordering the Detention Facility to bring the Accuseds to court on 8 January 2012)
• Decision on Ieng Sary’s Request for Reconsideration of the Trial Chamber Decision on the Accused’s Fitness to Stand Trial and Supplemental Request (19 Dec 2012) (Rejecting the request by the Defence and granting the Co-Prosecutors’ and Civil Parties’ requests to obtain copies of the physician’s daily reports)
• Order for Submissions (12 Dec 2012) (Ordering the Ieng Sary Defence to stop audio recording the conversations between the Accused and the treating physician)
• Decision on Defence Requests Concerning Irregularities Alleged to Have Occurred During the Judicial Investigation (E221, E223, E224, E224/2, E234, E234/2, E241 and E241/1) (7 Dec 2012) (Rejecting all Defence requests and warning the Ieng Sary Defence not to conduct any investigations)
• Decision on Objections to Documents Proposed to Be Put Before the Chamber in Co-Prosecutors’ Annexes A6-A11 and A14-A20 and By the Other Parties (3 Dec 2012) (Deciding that all documents put forth by the Co-Prosecutors except 7 are deemed as before the Chamber and that documents put forth by the Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyers, Khieu Samphan, and Ieng Sary are also deemed as before the Chamber)
• Decision on Accused Ieng Sary’s Fitness to Stand Trial (26 Nov 2012) (Affirming that Ieng Sary is currently fit to stand trial and determining that a stay of the proceedings, adjournment or severance of the proceedings is unwarranted at this time)
• Order to Bring (7 Nov 2012) (Ordering the ECCC detention facility to bring the Accused to court on 8 November 2012)
• Notification of Decision on Co-Prosecutors’ Request to Include Additional Crime Sites within the Scope of Trial in Case 002/01 and Deadline for Submission of Applicable Law Portion of Closing Briefs (8 Oct 2012) (Rejecting most of the proposals to extend the trial to include additional crime sites but deciding to include the killings at Toul Po Chrey)
• Order to Strike Words from the Record/Public (5 Oct 2012) (Striking the words that were spoken by the Defence Counsel after the adjournment of the hearing from the record)
• Decision on Presentation of Certain Documents (3 Sept 2012) (Providing the full reasons for its oral decision on the presentation of documents by the Nuon Chea Defence)
• Decision on Assignment of Experts (5 July 2012) (Ordering the appointment of David Chandler, Philip Short and Elizabeth Becker as experts in Case 002)
• Decision on Co-Prosecutors’ Rule 92 Submission Regarding the Admission of Witness Statements and Other Documents Before the Trial Chamber (20 June 2012) (Outlining the criteria the Trial Chamber will use to assess whether written statements or transcripts may be admitted to trial)
• Decision on Ieng Sary’s Application for Disqualification of Judge Cartwright (4 June 2012) (Denying the request for disqualification, denying the request for a cease and desist order and denying the request to disclose all ex parte communications).
• Decision Concerning New Documents and Other Related Issues (30 Apr 2012) (Deciding the admissibility of various identified documents into the Case File and Shared Materials Drive)
• Decision on Objections to Documents Proposed to Be Put Before the Chamber on the Co-Prosecutors’ Annexes A1-A5 and to Documents Cited in Paragraphs of the Closing Order Relevant to the First Two Trial Segments of Case 002/01 (9 Apr 2012) (Deciding that all documents cited in the Closing Order relevant to the decision have been put before the chamber with a few exceptions and denying Nuon Chea’s request for more information and Khieu Samphan’s request that original copies of contemporaneous documents be produced)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Decision on Motions for Disqualification of Judge Silvia Cartwright (2 Dec 2011) (Rejecting Ieng Sary’s request for an investigation and denying the immediate and permanent disqualification of Judge Cartwright)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Decision on Nuon Chea’s Fitness to Stand Trial and Defense Motion for Additional Medical Expertise (15 Nov 2011) (Finding the Accused Nuon Chea is fit to stand trial and dismissing the Defence request for additional expertise)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Decision on Ieng Sary’s Rule 89 Preliminary Objections (Ne Bis In Idem and Amnesty and Pardon) (3 Nov 2011) (Dismissing the Defence preliminary objections and declaring the question of the application of the 1996 Royal Decree to national crimes to be moot)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Decision on Co-Prosecutors’ Request to Exclude Armed Conflict Nexus Requirement From the Definition of Crimes Against Humanity (26 Oct 2011) (Granting the Co-Prosecutor’s request to exclude the armed conflict nexus requirement from the definition of crimes against humanity in Case 002)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Scheduling Order for Opening Statements and Hearing on the Substance in Case 002 (18 Oct 2011) (Scheduling the commencement of opening statements in Case 002 for November 21, 2011 and scheduling the initial segment of the hearing of evidence from November 28-December 16, 2011)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Decision on Co-Prosecutors’ Request for Reconsideration of the Terms of the Trial Chamber’s Severance Order (E124/2) and Related Motions and Annexes (18 Oct 2011) (Rejecting the Co-Prosecutors’ request for reconsideration of its severance order)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Scheduling Order for Hearings of 19 and 20 October 2011 (10 Oct 2011) (Scheduling a hearing on 19 October 2011 to allow the Civil Party Lead Co-Laywers to present their revised reparations specifications and scheduling an additional hearing on 19 October 2011 to permit questioning of the Psychiatric Experts concerning their conclusions regarding Accused Ieng Thirith’s fitness to stand trial)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Severance Order Pursuant to Internal Rule 89ter (22 Sept 2011) (Severing Case 002 into multiple trials defined by subject matter, with each trial focusing on distinct portions of the Indictment)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Decision on the Applicability of Joint Criminal Enterprise (12 Sept 2011) (Finding JCE I and JCE II applicable forms of criminal liability under the ECCC’s jurisdiction, but finding JCE III inapplicable because it was not part of customary international law between 1975 and 1979)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Decision on Ieng Sary’s Request for Release (12 May 2011) (Rejecting the request)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Decision on Ieng Thirith and Ieng Sary’s Applications for Disqualification of Judge You Ottara from the Special Bench & Requests for a Special Hearing (9 May 2011) (Denying the applications)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Decision on Ieng Sary’s Motion for a Hearing on the Conduct of the Judicial Investigations (8 Apr 2011) (Rejecting the motion and referring defense counsels’ conduct to the Defense Support Section for review pursuant to its power to refuse part payment for work claimed where the work carried out is not ‘necessary and reasonable’).
• Ieng Sary, TC, Trial Chamber Response to Motions E67, E57, E56, E58, E23, E59, E20, E33, E71 and E73 Following Trial Management Meeting of 5 April 2011 (8 Apr 2011)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Directions to Parties Concerning Preliminary Objections and Related Issues (5 Apr 2011)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Decision on Ieng Sary’s Motions Regarding Judicial Notice of Adjudicated Facts from Case 001 and Facts of Common Knowledge Being Applied in Case 002 (4 Apr 2011) (Rejecting both motions and referring defense counsels’ conduct to the Defense Support Section for review pursuant to its power to refuse part payment for work claimed where the work carried out is not ‘necessary and reasonable’)
• Order to Ieng Sary Defense on Filing of Preliminary Objections(25 Feb 2011) (Directing Ieng Sary’s defense to file a single preliminary objections submission of no greater than 35 pages (English) or 50 pages (Khmer) no later than Monday 28 February 2011)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Decision on Ieng Sary’s Application to Disqualify Judge Nil Nonn and Related Requests (28 Jan 2011) (Denying the application for dismissal, defense’s request for a hearing on the matter, and Co-Prosecutors’ request for a time extension to respond to the application)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Consolidated Scheduling Order (27 Jan 2011) (Consolidating the hearings for all defense appeals of the Closing Order)
• Ieng Sary, TC, Directive on Access to the Detention Facility and the Case File by Members of Defense Teams (26 Jan 2011) (Clarifying procedures that allow defense teams to access the detention facility and case file)

Pleadings

• Ieng Sary’s Reply to the Co-Prosecutors’ Response to ‘Ieng Sary’s Appeal Against the Trial Chamber’s 16 January 2013 Decision to Deny His Request to be Audio and/or Video Recorded in the Holding Cell’(5 Mar 2013) (Stating the OCP response in inaccurate and misleading and reaffirming the request to admit the Defence’s appeal).
• Co-Prosecutors’ Response to ‘Ieng Sary’s Appeal Against the Trial Chamber’s 16 January 2013 Decision to Deny His Request to Be Audio and/or Video Recorded in the Holding Cell (27 Feb 2013) (Requesting that the Appeal be dismissed as inadmissible or unfounded).
• Ieng Sary’s Expedited Request to File Appeal in English Only with Khmer Translation to Follow (29 Jan 2013) (Requesting that an English-only version be filed first due to time constraints)
• Ieng Sary’s Reply to the Co-Prosecutors’ Response to His Appeal Against the Trial Chamber’s Decision on Fitness to Stand Trial (28 Jan 2013) (Addressing what the Defense feels are inaccurate and misleading submissions in the OCP response)
• Ieng Sary’s Reply to the Co-Prosecutors’ Response to His Appeal Against the Trial Chamber’s Decision on Defence Requests Concerning Irregularities Alleged to Have Occurred During the Judicial Investigation (E221, E223, E224, E224/2, E234, E234/2, E241 and E241/1)(28 Jan 2013) (Replying to address inaccuracies and unfounded submissions by the OCP)
• Ieng Sary’s Notice of Appeal Against Decision on the Ieng Sary Defence Request to Audio and/or Video Record Ieng Sary in the Holding Cell & Request for Consolidation of Consideration of Appeal with the Appeal Against the Trial Chamber’s Oral Decision to Deny His Right to Be Present in the Courtroom and to Prohibit Him from Being Video Recorded in the Holding Cell (E238/9/1/1)(25 Jan 2013) (Requesting to consolidate the two Appeals and to postpone a decision until the issue can be fully briefed)
• Co-Prosecutors’ Response to Ieng Sary’s Appeal Against the Trial Chamber’s Decision on Fitness to Stand Trial (18 Jan 2013) (Arguing that the Accused’s appeal is inadmissible at this stage in the proceedings without commenting on the merits of the submission)
• Ieng Sary’s Reply to the Co-Prosecutors’ Response to his Appeal Against the Trial Chamber’s Oral Decision to Deny His Right to be Present in the Courtroom and to Prohibit Him from Being Video Recorded in the Holding Cell (9 Jan 2013) (Addressing submissions by the OCP that the Defence finds inaccurate, misleading and unfounded)
• Co-Prosecutors’ Response to Ieng Sary’s Appeal Against the Trial Chamber’s Oral Decision Concerning Mode of Participation and Video-Recording of the Holding Cell (3 Jan 2013) (Arguing that the appeal is not admissible in this stage of the proceeding but refusing to comment on the merits of arguments put forth by the Accused)
• Ieng Sary’s Appeal Against the Trial Chamber’s Decision that He is Fit to Stand Trial and Its Refusal to Appoint An Additional Expert to Assess Fitness (Redacted Version)(3 Jan 2013) (Providing the public redacted version of the Accused’s arguments in the matter)
• Co-Prosecutors’ Reply to Nuon Chea Response to Appeal of Decision Concerning the Scope of Trial in Case 002/01 (3 Dec 2012)  (Requesting that the Chamber reject the arguments made by the Defence)
• Co-Prosecutors’ Reply to Ieng Sary Response to Appeal of Decision Concerning the Scope of Trial in Case 002/01 (26 Nov 2012) (Requesting that the Chamber reject the arguments made by the Defence)
• Ieng Sary’s Response to the Co-Prosecutors’ Request for a Public Oral Hearing of the Immediate Appeal of the Decision Concerning the Scope of Trial in Case 002/01 or In the Alternative Request to File a Joint Reply to Three Defence Responses (23 Nov 2012) (Requesting that the Chamber deny the request because the Chamber does not have jurisdiction to hear such free standing requests from the OCP)
• Co-Prosecutors’ Request for a Public Oral Hearing of the Immediate Appeal of the Decision Concerning the Scope of Trial in Case 002/01 or in the Alternative Request to File a Joint Reply to the Three Defence Responses (21 Nov 2012) (Requesting that the Chamber hold a public oral argument regarding the appeal or, in the alternative, that the Co-Prosecutors’ be allowed to file a joint reply)
• Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyers Support to the Co-Prosecutors’ Immediate Appeal of Decision Concerning the Scope of Trial in Case 002/01 (21 Nov 2012) (Supporting the Co-Prosecutors appeal proposing an extension of the scope of the trial)
• Ieng Sary’s Response to the Co-Prosecutors’ Immediate Appeal of Decision Concerning the Scope of Trial in Case 002/01 (19 Nov 2012) (Requesting that the Chamber dismiss the request as untimely)
• Co-Prosecutors’ Immediate Appeal of Decision Concerning the Scope of Trial in Case 002/01 with Annex I and Confidential Annex II (7 Nov 2012) (Requesting that the Supreme Court Chamber hold that an extension of the scope of trial is in the interest of justice and amend the Impugned Decision to include two sites in the scope of the trial)
• Ieng Sary’s Reply to Co-Prosecutor’s Response to Ieng Sary’s Appeal Against the Trial Chamber’s Decision Refusing His Request for the Trial Chamber to Direct Its Senior Legal Officer to Maintain Open and Transparent Communication With All the Parties (7 Feb 2012) (Stating that the OCP misinterpreted both the Appeal’s admissibility based on Rule 104 and the proper application of Rule 21)
• Co-Prosecutors’ Response to Ieng Sary’s Appeal Against the Trial Chamber’s Decision Refusing His Request for the Trial Chamber to Direct its Senior Legal Officer to Maintain Open and Transparent Communication With All the Parties (1 Feb 2012) (Requesting the Chamber to find the Appeal wholly inadmissible and to dismiss the Co-Laywers’ request for an oral hearing)
• Ieng Sary’s Appeal Against the Trial Chamber’s Decision Refusing His Request for the Trial Chamber to Direct Its Senior Legal Officer to Maintain Open and Transparent Communication with All the Parties (20 Jan 2012) (Appealing the memorandum stating that the Trial Chamber Senior Legal Officer is engaging in inappropriate conduct in her ex parte communications)
• Co-Prosecutors’ Response to Ieng Sary’s Appeal Against the Trial Chamber’s Decision on Motions for Disqualification of Judge Silvia Cartwright (19 Jan 2012) (Requesting that the Supreme Court Chamber dismiss the appeal as inadmissible and deny the appeal because the Trial Chamber did not abuse its discretion)
• Co-Prosecutors’ Response to Ieng Sary’s Appeal Against the Trial Chamber’s Decision Requiring the Accused to be Physically Present to Hear Charges and Opening Statements (12 Jan 2012) (Submitting that the Appeal is inadmissible at this stage in the proceedings)
• Ieng Sary’s Appeal Against the Trial Chamber’s Decision Denying His Right to Waive His Presence in the Courtroom During Trial and Denying His Constitutional Right to Assist in His Own Defence (5 Jan 2012) (Requesting that the Supreme Court Chamber hold that the Trial Chamber erred in compelling Ieng Sary’s presence in the courtroom and refusing to allow him to participate in the proceedings)
• Ieng Sary’s Appeal Against the Trial Chamber’s Decision on Motions for Disqualification of Judge Silvia Cartwright (5 Jan 2012) (Appealing the Trial Chamber’s Decision on Motions for Disqualification of Judge Silvia Cartwright because the Trial Chamber mischaracterized and misconstrued Ieng Sary’s Request for Investigation and failed to conduct the requested investigation into ex parte meetings between the Judge and the International Co-Prosecutor)

Orders, Decisions and Judgments

• Post Mortem Dismissal of Ieng Sary’s Immediate Appeals (21 Mar 2013) (Dismissing all appeals without deciding the merits due to the death of Ieng Sary).
• Order for Immediate Compliance with Rule 108 of the Internal Rules (12 Mar 2013) (Ordering the Trial Chamber to immediately forward Case 002 to the Supreme Court Chamber).
• Decision on the Co-Prosecutors’ Immediate Appeal of the Trial Chamber’s Decision Concerning the Scope of Case 002/01 (8 Feb 2013) (Declaring the severance of Case 002 invalid and finding the Trial Chamber’s severance order to be based on an erroneous interpretation of law which resulted in a violation of parties’ rights)
• Decision on Ieng Sary’s Expedited Request to File Appeal in English Only with Khmer Translation to Follow(30 Jan 2013) (Granting the request to file the English version of the appeal first)
• Order to File a Public Redacted Version of Ieng Sary’s Appeal (E238/9/2/1) (24 Jan 2013) (Instructing the Defence to file a redacted version and to limit the redactions to strictly confidential information)
• Decision on Co-Prosecutors’ Request for Appeal Hearing on Scope of Trial in Case 002/01 or Leave to File Joint Reply (18 Dec 2012) (Denying the Co-Prosecutors request for a public hearing on the immediate appeal and dismissing their alternative request to file a joint reply)
• Decision on Ieng Sary’s Appeal Against the Trial Chamber’s Decision on Its Senior Legal Officer’s Ex Parte Communications(25 Apr 2012) (Declaring the  appeal inadmissible because the Accused failed to show how the communications resulted in an infringement of rights)
• Decision on Ieng Sary’s Appeal Against the Trial Chamber’s Decision on Motions for Disqualification of Judge Silvia Cartwright(17 Apr 2012) (Deciding that the appeal is inadmissible and that it should be dismissed on the merits because there is no reason to believe that Judge Cartwright interfered in the administration of justice)
• Dissenting Opinion of Judges Klonowiecka-Milart and Jayasinghe(20 Mar 2012) (Rejecting the majority’s contention that the Chamber’s jurisdiction over immediate appeals is limited to the circumstances in 104(4) and would expand jurisdiction to any issue that would affect the fair proceedings and conduct of the trial)
• Decision on Ieng Sary’s Appeal Against Trial Chamber’s Decision on Ieng Sary’s Rule 89 Preliminary Objections (Ne Bis In Idem and Amnesty and Pardon) (20 Mar 2012) (Deciding to reject the Appeal as inadmissible because there is no general right to interlocutory appeal)
• Decision on Ieng Sary’s Appeal Against Trial Chamber’s Decision on Co-Prosecutors’ Request to Exclude Armed Conflict Nexus Requirement from the Definition of Crimes Against Humanity (19 Mar 2012) (Deciding that the Appeal is inadmissible because jurisdiction is limited to appeals from decisions that effectively terminate the proceedings)
• Decision on Ieng Sary’s Appeal Against Trial Chamber’s Order Requiring His Presence in Court (13 Jan 2012) (Deciding that the Appeal is inadmissible because the substance of the appeal does not fall into the Supreme Court Chamber’s limited jurisdiction for immediate appeals)
• Ieng Sary, SC, Annex 2: Comparison Between the 1979 Trial of Ieng Sary and the Introductory Submission (5 Dec 2011) (Comparing the 1979 Trial of Ieng Sary and the Introductory Submission as an accompaniment to the above appeal)
• Ieng Sary, SC, Annex 1: Background (5 Dec 2011) (Providing the background for the above appeal)
• Ieng Sary, SC, Ieng Sary’s Appeal Against the Trial Chamber’s Decision on Ieng Sary’s Rule 89 Preliminary Objections (Ne Bis In Idem and Amnesty and Pardon) (5 Dec 2011) (Appealing the Trial Chamber’s Decision on Ieng Sary’s Rule 89 preliminary objections and claiming the Trial Chamber erred in law and abused its discretion by deciding that neither the principle of ne bis in idem nor Ieng Sary’s Royal Pardon and Amnesty bar Ieng Sary’s prosecution)
• Ieng Sary, SC, Ieng Sary’s Request for Leave to Reply & Reply to Co-Prosecutors’ Response to Ieng Sary’s Appeal Against the Trial Chamber Decision to Exclude the Armed Conflict Nexus from the Definition of Crimes Against Humanity (12 Dec 2011) (Requesting leave to reply to the Co-Prosecutors’ response to Ieng Sary’s Appeal against the Trial Chamber Decision to exclude the armed conflict nexus from the definition of crimes against humanity asserting the OCP errs in stating that the appeal is inadmissible)
• Ieng Sary, SC, Co-Prosecutors’ Response to Ieng Sary’s Appeal Against the Trial Chamber Decision to Exclude the Armed Conflict Nexus From the Definition of Crimes Against Humanity (2 Dec 2011) (Requesting that the Chamber find the appeal wholly inadmissible and dismiss the request for a public oral hearing)
• Ieng Sary, SC, Annex 4: Letter of Authorization of Ieng Sary to Trial Chamber Judges (25 Nov 2011) (Authorizing the Co-Laywers to file the appeal against the Trial Chamber’s Decision on Co-Prosecutors’ Request to Exclude Armed Conflict Nexus Requirement from the Definition of Crimes Against Humanity)
• Ieng Sary, SC, Annex 3: Commentary on the Armed Conflict Nexus in Crimes Against Humanity (25 Nov 2011) (Providing the text of secondary sources in support of the Armed Conflict Nexus)
• Ieng Sary, SC, Annex 2: Authority on State Practice in Relation to the Development of the Amred Conflict Nexus as Element of Crimes Against Humanity in Customary International Law (1868-Present) (25 Nov 2011) (Providing the text of sources showing the genesis of the armed conflict nexus requirement through a survey of international instruments and national legislation)
• Ieng Sary, SC, Annex 1: Procedural History Leading Up to the Appeal (25 Nov 2011) (Providing the procedural history leading up to the appeal above)
• Ieng Sary, SC, Ieng Sary’s Appeal Against the Trial Chamber’s Decision on Co-Prosecutors’ Request to Exclude Armed Conflict Nexus Requirement from the Definition of Crimes Against Humanity (25 Nov 2011) (Requesting the Supreme Court grant an oral public hearing to address issues raised in the Appeal, declare the appeal admissible, and annul the Impugned Decision excluding the armed conflict nexus requirement from the definition of crimes against humanity to be applied in Case 002)
• Ieng Sary, SC, Amendment of Requirement to File Copies of Authorities (28 Oct 2011) (Exempting the parties in Case 002 from filing copies of authorities that are already in the public domain and easily accessible)
• Ieng Sary, SC, Decision on Two Notices of Appeal Filed by Ieng Sary (8 Apr 2011) (Rejecting the appeals as inadmissible)
• Ieng Sary, SC, Decision on Two Notices of Appeal Filed by Ieng Sary (8 Apr 2011) (Rejecting both notices of appeal as inadmissible)