PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW 27. The appellants’ submission has a further, more international, dimension. They accept, as they must, that a treaty, even if ratified by the United Kingdom, has no binding force in the domestic law of this country unless it is given effect by statute or expresses principles of customary international law: J H Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd v Department of Trade and Industry [1990] 2 AC 418; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Brind [1991] 1 AC 696; R v Lyons [2002] UKHL 44, [2003] 1 AC 976. But they rely on the wellestablished principle that the words of a United Kingdom statute, passed after the date of a treaty and dealing with the same subject matter, are to be construed, if they are reasonably capable of bearing such a meaning, as intended to carry out the treaty obligation and not to be inconsistent with it: Garland v British Rail Engineering Ltd [1983] 2 AC 751, 771. The courts are obliged under section 2 of the 1998 Act to take Strasbourg jurisprudence into account in connection with a Convention right, their obligation under section 3 is to interpret and give effect to primary and subordinate legislation in a way which is compatible with Convention rights so far as possible to do so and it is their duty under section 6 not to act incompatibly with a Convention right. If, and to the extent that, development of the common law is called for, such development should ordinarily be in harmony with the United Kingdom’s international obligations and not antithetical to them. I do not understand these principles to be contentious. 28. The appellants’ argument may, I think, be fairly summarised as involving the following steps: (1) The European Convention is not to be interpreted in a vacuum, but taking account of other international obligations to which member states are subject, as the European Court has in practice done. (2) The prohibition of torture enjoys the highest normative force recognised by international law. (3) The international prohibition of torture requires states not merely to refrain from authorising or conniving at torture but also to suppress and discourage the practice of torture and not to condone it. (4) Article 15 of the Torture Convention requires the exclusion of statements made as a result of torture as evidence in any proceedings. (5) Court decisions in many countries have given effect directly or indirectly to article 15 of the Torture Convention. -18-