A/HRC/25/60/Add.2 alleged that the authorities informed that they had conducted an independent investigation finding no evidence of torture, but the report has not been made public. It is reported that the authorities provided information indicating that the Human Rights Section of the Dubai Police had conducted an investigation into the allegations of torture, but suggest that members of the police force engaged in the investigation, and that no statements by the victims themselves were considered. During their trial, the “intent to supply” charges against them were reportedly dropped, but they were sentenced to four years for possession and consumption of “Spice.” It is alleged that the documents signed by the three men under duress have been used as evidence during the trial. In this context, the Special Rapporteur reminds the government of the United Arab Emirates that paragraph 1 of Human Rights Council Resolution 16/23 and paragraph 8a of Human Rights Council Resolution 16/23 condemn and prohibit at all times all forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including through intimidation, and can never be justified, calling upon all States to implement fully the absolute and non-derogable prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In addition, article 12 of the CAT and paragraph 7b of Human Rights Council Resolution 16/23 require the competent authorities to undertake a prompt and impartial investigation wherever there are reasonable grounds to believe that torture has been committed, and article 7 of the CAT requires State parties to prosecute suspected perpetrators of torture. Regarding allegations that confessions were obtained under torture, the Special Rapporteur recalls that article 15 of the CAT and paragraph 7c of Human Rights Council Resolution 16/23 prohibit the use of torture as evidence in any proceeding except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made. In this context, the Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, Cuba, 27 August to 7 September 1990 require prosecutors to refuse use of evidence obtained through torture and to take all necessary steps to ensure that those responsible for using such methods are brought to justice. Prosecutors must perform their duties fairly, consistently and expeditiously, and respect and protect human dignity and uphold human rights. On the basis of the evidence before him, the Special Rapporteur finds that the UAE have violated the rights of Messrs. Cameron, Jerrh and Williams and he calls on the Government to undertake a prompt and independent investigation of the alleged torture and ill-treatment and denial of access to a lawyer of the three British nationals, by Dubai police officers, leading to prosecution and punishment of the perpetrators and to provide full redress to the victims. (c) UA 06/08/2013 Case No. ARE 4/2013 State reply: 20/11/2013 (State reply refers also to communication of 9 September 2013) Alleged unfair trial and torture of 69 individuals, including human rights lawyers, judges, academics and students on 2 July 2013. 160. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of the United Arab Emirates for its reply, dated 20 November 2013, to this communication in reference to the arrests, detention, allegations of the use of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, reported lack of due process guarantees and the reported lack of independence of the judiciary. It is reported that many of the individuals referenced are members of al-Islah (Society for Reform and Social Guidance), a long-standing civil society organization in the UAE, operating in sectors such as education and charity and which calls for the democratic reform and greater adherence to Islamic principles in the UAE. The 69 individuals who were sentenced on 2 July 2013 allegedly supported a petition that inter alia called for reform on social, broadcast and print media. One group was allegedly sentenced in absentia to 15 years in prison; a second group was sentenced to ten years imprisonment with three years’ probation; a third group was sentenced to seven years imprisonment; and the remaining 25 were acquitted. Sources reported that the defense team for the detained had been harassed, had members deported, had been unable to meet freely and privately with their clients, or bring materials, including case files, into court. Additionally, international 117