A/HRC/45/51/Add.1 Paragraph 80 107. We observe that the above statements, maybe inadvertently, describe the consideration of the Pre-Trial Chamber (PTC) in a way that may lead to some confusion about the ongoing judicial proceedings in case 004/2. These include the following: a). The sentence stating that “…the three national judges would have dismissed the case, while the two international judges would have sent the case for trial” leaves an impression that one of these views represents the correct outcome of the proceedings before the PTC. Pursuant to the ECCC statuary framework, the charges in this case shall be dismissed or sent to trial. It is for the PTC to do so. According to its decision on 19th December 2019, the PTC unanimously found that “the Co-Investigating Judges’ issuance of the Two Conflicting Closing Orders was illegal, violating the legal framework of the ECCC”. However, it then split on the consequences of this illegality and expressed two different opinions. At the same time, none of the views of five national and international judges received the required supermajority vote and the PTC, as a Chamber, did not clarify the procedural consequences of that latter fact. Nonetheless, this issue, as discussed below, is at the time of writing, being considered by other judicial entities of the ECCC. b) One sentence, stating that “…the Trial Chamber, which has also declined to rule judicially on the status of the case” is not factually reflecting what actions were taken by the Trial Chamber. Since early January 2020, the Trial Chamber was convened to work on a submission made by the International Co-Prosecutor in relation to case 004/2. As a result, the Trial Chamber issued on 3rd April 2020 a “Joint Statement regarding the Case 004/2 Involving OA An” where it provided its views on the process. The statement expressly states that “issuing a formal decision of the Trial Chamber is not possible” and that the statement has no legal force. The statement was made with a goal of providing transparency to the parties in the case and by being made public also to the greatest public. c) Finally, the international co-prosecutor has subsequently made an immediate appeal in the case to the Supreme Court Chamber (SCC). These proceedings are ongoing. Paragraph 81 108. The above sentence contains factual errors, which lead to unfortune misinterpretations. The statement stating that “…administrative components of the court has been to leave proceedings functionally suspended, in a state of complete legal uncertainty” is factually wrong for the following reasons: a) On the administrative component: The administrative components of the ECCC have no standing in any of its judicial processes. Further, the ECCC Internal Rules mandate the Office of Administration, through its sub-offices, only to implement judicial acts following an instruction or direction of the relevant Chamber as communicated through its greffier. The Office of Administration with its sub-officers, is neither mandated to interpret any judicial decision nor resolve any conflicting instructions received from any of the greffiers. Such obligations fall squarely within the mandate of the judicial entities of the Extraordinary Chambers. b) On the functional suspension: At the time of writing, a number of submissions are actively being processed by several judicial offices of the ECCC. The two most prominent being (a) immediate appeal filed to the SCC by the international co-prosecutor; and (b) the motion filed to the Office of Co-Investigating Judge by the defence. In fact, no proceedings are suspended. c) On the complete legal uncertainty: With the proceedings being actively pursued by several judicial authorities with ECCC, any legal uncertainty is not different from other issues being addressed by a judicial body. 109. The sentence describing about the challenge for the victims of the Khmer Rouge, is misleading. The rights of the victims of the Khmer Rouge are promoted before the ECCC far beyond any other similar judicial authority. The statuary framework of the ECCC grant individual victims with a judicial identity and procedural rights as Civil Parties and as victim complainants. These rights have been fully respected and exercised in all proceedings before 21