ODIHR Opinion on Definition of Torture and its Absolute Prohibition in Polish Legislation acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. [par 37] 13. Beyond defining torture and other ill-treatment as serious crimes in the national legislation, additional core requirements for consideration include the State’s obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish all acts of torture and other ill-treatment (Article 12 of the UNCAT), to ensure an enforceable right to redress, including fair and adequate compensation, for victims of torture (Article 14 of the UNCAT) as well as the full implementation of the non-refoulement principle (Article 3 of the UNCAT) and the exclusionary rule (Article 15 of the UNCAT). These requirements are not exhaustive but selected based on the CAT recommendations for Poland highlighting these deficiencies in the Polish legislation. Thus, additional recommendations include: B) Poland should take effective legislative, administrative and judicial measures to prevent acts of torture and other ill-treatment. When determining the punishment for acts of torture or other ill-treatment, the penalties provided for in the legislation should reflect the grave nature of the crime committed, but should not be less than six years of imprisonment, as recommended by the CAT. Furthermore, acts of torture should be explicitly excluded from any statute of limitations act; [par 42] C) Recalling the CAT recommendation (2013) “to take immediate legal and other measures to ensure that victims of torture and ill-treatment obtain redress and have an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation,” it is recommended that relevant legislation explicitly provides for effective legal redress for victims of torture and other ill-treatment; [par 44] and D) It is recommended that relevant legislation includes provisions that expressly prohibit the use of evidence obtained through torture and, in line with the exclusionary rule, declare any evidence or extrajudicial statement obtained under torture or other ill-treatment inadmissible. This could also be supplemented in Article 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code which lists the conditions when evidence is inadmissible. [par 51] IV. 1. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS International Obligations, Regional Instruments and OSCE Commitments 14. The prohibition of torture is a fundamental element of international human rights law. The absolute ban on torture cannot be derogated under any circumstances, not even in a state of war or public emergency.1 States are not only obligated to refrain from using or tolerating torture, they are also required to take positive measures to prevent its occurrence, protect and support victims, investigate any allegations of torture and punish those responsible. Overall, all the characteristics of the prohibition of torture demonstrate that it is considered to be a serious crime under international law. 1 The prohibition against torture is well established under customary international law as jus cogens. It has the highest standing in customary law and is so fundamental as to supersede all other treaties, except those that are also jus cogens). 5