racial profiling and discrimination.839 Blanket stop and search powers will breach the requirements of proportionality and necessity.840 36. Police searches and seizure whether conducted at home, business or other premises will engage privacy rights.841 G. Unlawfully obtained evidence 37. As a general principle, any evidence obtained in breach of private life rights should not form part of a criminal prosecution, because to do so may violate the right to a fair trial.842 Investigations and prosecutions should be undertaken so as to ensure compliance with international human rights.843 Similarly prosecutors should refuse to use evidence ‘that they know or believe on reasonable grounds was obtained through recourse to unlawful methods, which constitute a grave violation of the suspect’s human rights’.844 Evidence gained from an interference with privacy should not be submitted in such a way as to jeopardise the right of the accused to a fair trial. Human rights standards require the proceedings as a whole, including the way in which evidence is submitted, to be fair.845 38. The European Court has, however, accepted that the right to a fair trial is not necessarily breached where evidence is relied upon which was obtained in violation of the right to respect for private life. For example, where the impugned evidence (an illegal telephone tap) was not the only evidence against the accused in a case involving a serious crime, there was no violation of the right to a fair trial where that evidence was admitted.846 39. Similarly in a case where the police had not acted illegally as a matter of domestic law, but had nonetheless breached the right to respect for private life through the use of eavesdropping devices, the applicant’s fair trial rights were not violated in a serious drugs case where he pleaded guilty to the offence. There was no violation of the right to a fair trial, notwithstanding that this was the only evidence against the applicant. 847 40. Subsequent cases before the European Court have found a violation of the right to a fair trial where there has been an unlawful interference with privacy. This took place when the police used surveillance methods to obtain evidence against the applicant whilst he was being detained in police custody on suspicion of having committed murder.848 839 Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, A/HRC/13/37, para 23. 840 Ibid. 841 European Court, Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992. 842 European Court, Allan v UK, 12 July 2013. See section IX above. 843 Human Rights Committee, re France, A/52/40 (vol.I), para 402. 844 1990 Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, para 16. 845 See section IX above. 846 European Court, Schenk v Switzerland, 12 July 1998. 847 European Court, Khan v UK, 4 October 2000. 848 European Court, Allen v UK, 12 July 2013 136