A/HRC/25/60 11. From 8 to 14 November 2013, the Special Rapporteur conducted a country visit to Ghana (A/HRC/25/60/Add.1) at the invitation of the Government. 12. On 15 November 2013, the Special Rapporteur discussed the topic of reprisals during a meeting with members of the United Nations Committee against Torture and the Subcommittee on the Prevention on Torture in Geneva, Switzerland. 13. On 9 December 2013, the Special Rapporteur gave a keynote speech on the theme of “What Steps Can the International Community Take to Eradicate Torture?” at the Fifth Annual Baha Mousa Memorial Lecture in London, United Kingdom. 14. From 10 to 12 February 2014, the Special Rapporteur conducted a follow-up visit to the Republic of Tajikistan, at the invitation of the Government, to assess the level of implementation of his recommendations and identify remaining challenges regarding torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 15. On 25 February 2014, the Special Rapporteur submitted a written statement and attended the second Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on solitary confinement, held at the United States Congress in Washington, D.C. 16. On 28 February 2014, the Special Rapporteur welcomed the publication on “Torture in Healthcare Settings: Reflection on the Special Rapporteur on Torture’s 2013 Thematic Report by the Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, Anti-Torture Initiative, Washington College of Law, American University. III. The use of torture-tainted information and the exclusionary rule Introduction 17. The exclusionary rule is fundamental for upholding the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (other ill-treatment) by providing a disincentive to use such acts. It contains an absolute prohibition on the use of statements made as a result of torture or other ill-treatment in any proceedings.1 However, in practice, this prohibition is not always upheld. Moreover, the wording of article 15 of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the Convention) may be its weakest aspect and the one most frequently flouted by States that practice torture. Some States interpret “any proceedings” narrowly, to mean judicial proceedings of a criminal nature against the person who has made the statement. More importantly, some insist that the exclusionary rule is triggered only when it is established that the statement was made under torture. However, the exclusionary rule is a norm of customary international law and is not limited to the Convention which is only one aspect of it. The exclusionary rule must be considered as one element under the overarching absolute prohibition against acts of torture and other ill-treatment and the obligation to prevent such acts. 18. Of particular concern are attempts to undermine the prohibition of torture or other ill-treatment that the tainted statement is not used in “proceedings” but for other purposes such as intelligence gathering or covert operations. Cooperation in sharing intelligence 1 4 The rule does provide a limited exception: Where a person is prosecuted for torture, the statement may be admitted as proof the statement was made. However, commentators have observed that the wording does not demonstrate an exception at all, since in proceedings against a person accused of torture, the confession is not admitted to show it is true, but rather simply that it was made. See Burgers & Danelius, The UN Convention Against Torture: A Handbook (1988), p. 147-148)