occurred in a third country.86 This approach has also been applied to third-party torture evidence by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), where the court held that it is necessary and sufficient for the complainant to show that there is a “real risk” that the impugned statement was obtained under torture or other illtreatment to invoke the exclusionary rule.87 Despite this, in most of the countries surveyed, evidence, such as the results of a medical examination or witness testimony, is expected or required in order to exclude evidence. This generally goes beyond showing that there is a real risk.88 Some countries go even further than this, by requiring the outcome of a separate criminal conviction to exclude evidence. It was found that in at least two OSCE participating States surveyed in this report, for example, the court will only exclude evidence if a separate criminal investigation has found that torture occurred.89 41. In some instances, evidence obtained by torture is admitted not because of faults and shortcomings in the legal procedure or poor medical and forensic reports but because judges are simply unwilling to exclude the evidence. In one OSCE participating State in Central Asia, a clear and explicit exclusionary rule is contained in the Criminal Procedural Code that prohibits all evidence obtained by torture.90 However, it is reported that the exclusionary rule is not always implemented in practice, both because of the lack of a clear procedure and because of judicial discretion as to whether to open an investigation into allegations.91 42. There are many reasons why judges might be unwilling to exclude evidence, such as an unwillingness to part from entrenched practices, external interference in the judicial process, or even the potential for judges to face disciplinary measures for acquittals, which is in clear violation of the principle of judicial independence. In an OSCE participating State from the South Caucasus region, the judiciary has been under persistent pressure for almost three decades, and the issue of its independence was raised during protests that occurred there in 2018. While recognizing the vision for reforms in the justice sector since 2018, including by the Minister of Justice,92 as well as concrete steps taken, such as the establishment 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 UN Committee Against Torture, Ktiti v. Morocco, CAT/C/46/D/419/2010, para. 8.8. El Haski v Belgium, App no. 649/08, (ECtHR, 25 September 2012), para. 88. Questionnaire response from Human Rights Association (Turkey), Helsinki Association of Armenia, Golos Svobody, (Kyrgyzstan), Public Verdict Foundation (Russia), Kharkiv Institute for Social Research (Ukraine) (2019) Questionnaire response from Golos Svobody (Kyrgyzstan), and from Public Verdict Foundation (Russia), (2019). Tajikistan Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 88–1. ICJ Global Redress and Accountability Initiative, op. cit., note 49, p. 14. “Armenian justice minister discusses judicial-legal reforms with high-ranking EU officials”, News. am, 6 December 2019. 31