Safeguards surrounding the right to privacy, including judicial oversight of the necessity and proportionality of any interference, need to be respected.137 Furthermore, it is important to recall that it is absolutely prohibited under international law to use evidence obtained by torture and other ill-treatment in judicial proceedings. Its admission as evidence in court violates due process and fair trial rights.138 This also applies when the evidence is received from other countries. Even if it is not intended to be used in court proceedings, but for other purposes, the collection, storing, sharing and receiving of torture tainted information should be banned.139 This is because the reliability of torture-tainted information is always doubtful and because it makes the receiving agency complicit in internationally wrongful acts.140 When receiving information from authorities of other states, including from conflict zones, measures should be taken to ensure that the information or evidence has not been obtained by unlawful means. Similarly, sharing of information should be based on national legislation that outlines clearly the parameters for information exchange and the safeguards that apply to ensure that information is not used for unlawful purposes. Before entering into an information and intelligence sharing agreement, or doing so on an ad hoc basis, an assessment should be made of the counterpart’s record on human rights and data protection, as well as the legal safeguards and institutional controls that govern the counterpart.141 States should ensure that they do not co-operate with other states in the sharing of information and evidence where those states do not meet fundamental human rights standards in practice. 137  See e.g., Shimolovs v. Russia, ECtHR, Judgment of 21 June 2011. For a fuller discussion of information exchange, data collection and analysis for the detection of FTFs and border control in pursuance of UNSC Resolution 2396 (2017), see UN CTITF Guidance 2018, p. 30-34, op. cit., note 10. 138  The reliance on torture evidence has been considered to amount to a “flagrant denial of justice” by the ECtHR; see, for example: Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v. Poland, ECtHR, Judgment of 24 July 2014. See also UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Report to the UN Human Rights Council, UN Doc. A/HRC/25/60, 10 April 2014, para. 21. 139  Ibid., para. 73. 140  OSCE Guidebook Intelligence-Led Policing, (Vienna: OSCE, 2017), p. 29, <https://www.osce.org/chairmanship/327476>; Human Rights in Counter-Terrorism Investigations, OSCE/ODIHR, p. 28-29, op. cit., note 133. See also: Report to the UN Human Rights Council, UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, UN Doc. A/HRC/25/60, op. cit., note 138; and UN Special Rapporteur on counter-terrorism, Report to the UN Human Rights Council, UN Doc. A/HRC/10/3, 4 February 2009, paras. 55-57. 141  See: UN Special Rapporteur on counter-terrorism, Report to the UN Human Rights Council (“Compilation of good practices on legal and institutional frameworks and measures that ensure respect for human rights by intelligence agencies while countering terrorism, including on their oversight”), UN Doc. A/HRC/14/46, 17 May 2010, Practices 31-32. Regarding the role of external oversight in this context see also: “Democratic and effective oversight of national security services”, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, May 2015, in particular recommendation 5. Guidelines for Addressing the Threats and Challenges of “Foreign Terrorist Fighters” 43