BEWARE THE GIFT OF POISON FRUIT Nevertheless, we cannot easily dismiss the serious practical and legal challenges faced by executive agencies in their consideration of potentially relevant information. Information is rarely labelled ‘obtained by torture’, and executive agents often do not know the conditions under which information they rely on was collected. Neither is it certain that even in circumstances where information is known to come from torture, it should not still be used to protect persons from serious threats, or respond and defeat an urgent threat to life. While it is clear that States will not cease all together what may be mutually beneficial relationships with States that torture, executive agencies should consider whether a more strategic preventive approach to cooperation would better achieve an end to systematic policies of torture and avoid allegations of complicity. Various obligations of international law might be invoked to demonstrate that an active information-sharing relationship with States that torture could lead to a violation of the prohibition against torture. While several challenges exist to limit the liability for torture committed overseas in situations beyond a State’s immediate control, principles of State responsibility and individual liability illustrate that a breach of the absolute prohibition against torture may nevertheless be found. Among the principle obligations of the absolute prohibition against torture, the evolving duties not to expose a person to the risk of torture overseas and to exclude information obtained by torture could be engaged to explore the permissible limits of executive action. Both Canada and the United Kingdom have published guidance for their executive actors to avoid allegations of complicity in torture committed overseas in their cooperation with foreign agencies. Whether the narrow interpretation of applicable standards is acceptable or not, the submission of such guidelines for public scrutiny is a good practice which should be welcomed and developed further. From this analysis, various principles and areas for further consideration may be identified. In the absence of clearly agreed principles and inconsistent national practice, the development of some internationally recognised standards is urgently needed to fill this norm-vacuum which has stood silent in the face of some egregious abuses of the absolute prohibition against torture. 4