A/HRC/25/60 practice of torture or other ill-treatment is often the result of the fact that State authorities continue to admit tainted evidence during trials. 65. The quality of medical and forensic reports needs to be improved and courts shall enhance the admissibility of independent and impartial medical evidence in any proceedings in order to effectively investigate allegations of torture or other illtreatment. In addition, courts should never admit extra-judicial confessions that are not corroborated by other evidence or that have been recanted. 66. The exclusionary rule covers the exclusion of statements obtained through torture or other ill-treatment of the defendant himself or of a third party as well as evidence obtained in a third state, even if the State seeking to rely on the information had no previous involvement in or connection to the acts of torture or other illtreatment. Similarly, documentary or other evidence obtained as a result of acts of torture or other ill-treatment must be excluded, irrespective of whether such evidence was corroborated or not the only decisive evidence in the case. 67. The Special Rapporteur holds that the defendant must only advance a plausible reason why the evidence may have been procured by torture or other ill-treatment. Thereafter the burden of proof must shift to the State and the courts must inquire as to whether there is a real risk that the evidence has been obtained by unlawful means. If there is a real risk, the evidence must not be admitted. 68. It is incumbent on States to go beyond the literal remit of article 15 of the Convention, and provide in domestic legislation procedures for the exclusion of any and all evidence obtained in violation of safeguards designed to protect against torture and other ill-treatment.56 69. Secret proceedings or “closed material procedures” inhibit the implementation of the exclusionary rule. States should implement effective legal representation and control of the implementation of the exclusionary rule in all proceedings involving secret evidence, closed material procedures or the invocation of the “state secrets doctrine” in order to enable the defendants effectively to challenge evidence, including evidence from the security services. There should be no state secret excuses for human rights violations. 70. The Special Rapporteur observes that in practice, the transition from an executive operation to a quasi-judicial or judicial one is often seamless, and that operational intelligence is often relied on in legal proceedings that follow.57 By utilizing tainted information originally obtained for intelligence and policing purposes the courts tacitly endorse and condone the torture or ill-treatment itself, contradicting the very essence of the exclusionary rule. Executive branch 71. While being aware of the threats posed by terrorism and the duty of States to protect their people against such threats, the Special Rapporteur reiterates that the absolute nature of the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment means that no exceptional circumstances whatsoever may be invoked as a justification for torture or other ill-treatment. 56 57 Principle 27, UN Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention of Imprisonment, G.A. res. 43/173, annex, 43 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 298, A/43/49 (1988). See also: ICJ, Assessing Damage, Urging Action; Report of the Eminent Jurists Panel on Terrorism, Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights (Geneva, 2009), p.85. 17