A/HRC/25/60 follows that the exclusionary rule, as a component of the prohibition, must also apply to States that are not party to the Convention against Torture.7 In the aftermath of the attacks of 11 September 2001, the Committee against Torture specified that the obligations in article 2, paragraph 2,of the Convention whereby “no exceptional circumstances whatsoever may be invoked as a justification of torture, the exclusionary rule contained in article 15 and article 16 prohibiting cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are three provisions of the Convention that “must be observed in all circumstances.”8 1. The scope and implementation of the exclusionary rule in any proceedings 23. Some progress has been made. Confessions, once considered the ‘queen of evidence,’ now require corroboration in most countries. Extrajudicial confessions are not generally considered as full evidence or given weight as presumptive or even indiciary (circumstantial) evidence. However, the practices in a number of countries show that forced confessions are still deemed admissible and that judges and prosecutors fail to promptly and impartially investigate allegations of torture or other ill-treatment. 24. In some States, due to a lack of capacity and expertise in investigating crimes, extracting confessions through ill-treatment or torture is still seen as the most efficient or only way to secure evidence and conviction. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur draws attention to the international standards intended to provide assistance to national law enforcement, including the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the UN Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, To ensure compliance with international standards, all applicable procedures should be reviewed regularly. During country visits, the Special Rapporteur has observed that some States are unable to provide information on cases where evidence had been excluded because it was found to have been obtained under torture, or the national provisions did not accurately reflect the exclusionary rule, or the measures to be taken by courts if evidence appears to have been obtained through torture or other ill-treatment, or the mechanisms in place by which evidence may be declared inadmissible. Though some national legislations do follow the standards set by the exclusionary rule, some do not. 25. In jurisdictions where independent medical examinations must be authorized by investigators, prosecutors or penitentiary authorities, these authorities have ample opportunity to delay authorization so that any injuries deriving from torture have healed by the time an examination is conducted. Additionally, these medical and forensic reports are often of such poor quality that they provide little assistance to judges or prosecutors when deciding whether to exclude statements. Some judges are willing to admit confessions without attempting to corroborate the confession with other evidence, even if the person recants before the judge and claims to have been tortured. In addition, sometimes cases submitted to the courts are based solely on confessions by the accused, and lack any material evidence, or judges establish prerequisites such as visible or recognizable marks for ruling that evidence obtained under torture or other ill-treatment was invalid. The Committee against Torture stated that physical marks or scar should not be a prerequisite for ruling the evidence obtained under torture was invalid.9 In addition, in order to show 7 8 9 6 GA res. 67/161, Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (2013), para.16; GA res. 3452 (XXX), Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1975), article 12; Matt Pollard, “Rotten Fruit: State Solicitation, Acceptance and the Use of Information obtained through Torture by Another State”, (2005) 23 NQHR, Vol.23/3, 349, at 357 Committee against Torture, General comment No. 2 (CAT/C/GC/2), para. 6; CAT/C/SR.1024, para. 29