SHARING INFORMATION WITH STATES THAT TORTURE to the US where he would likely be subjected to cruel and degrading punishment. The European Court held that Soering should not be extradited, as the prohibition against torture would be engaged by the extradition and the extraditing State would be responsible for the breach, even where it is subsequently beyond its control. The prohibition to send a person to a State where he would be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment is already a clear violation of article 3 of the UNCAT itself, but the principle articulated by the European Court and others is potentially part of a much wider general obligation not to expose a person to torture. If a person cannot be returned to face torture, then logically, nor should information be sent to be used to torture a person already held overseas. Yet until a clear ruling or standard adopts such reasoning, this interpretation should be regarded with some caution. Where a person is exposed to a risk of torture or ill-treatment, the standard of risk must be considered. The obligation not to refoule a person back to face torture requires a ‘real risk’ that they will face torture on their return, and it seems logical to retain this burden for the analysis of related manifestations. 25 The exclusionary rule, as described in article 15 of the UNCAT, could perhaps give an immediate answer to the issue of State use of torture-tainted information. It is, however, limited by its rather weak language, which has led some to question how far it may be applied to cover the actions of executive actors. Article 15: Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made. Despite the fact that criminal proceedings are not explicitly described, the wording used in article 15 has regularly been interpreted to 25 While ‘real risk’ is not explicitly articulated as the threshold for non-refoulement obligations, it is recognised as such in the jurisprudence and practice of several bodies. See Lauterpacht and Bethlehem, ‘The scope and content of the principle of non-refoulement : opinion’, in Erika Feller, Volker Turk and Frances Nicholson (eds.), Refugee Protection in International Law: UNHCR’s Global Consultations on International Protection (2003), in paras. 245–249. 23