The use of torture is also incentivized when evidence obtained through its use can be admitted as incriminating during trials. The reasons courts fail to exclude torture tainted evidence differ across countries and regions, but some of the most prevalent are: a) lack of clear procedures for excluding torture-tainted evidence; b) a lack of independence for criminal justice actors; c) the use of performance targets that result in these actors’ having a vested interest in obtaining convictions; d) difficulties in substantiating allegations that evidence has been obtained by means of the torturing of a third-party; and e) a lack of clarity on the application of the exclusionary rule to derivative evidence or “fruit of the poisonous tree” evidence.2 In the absence of clear international standards on the exclusion of evidence obtained by torture, there is a tendency in some countries to merge the procedure for excluding evidence in a trial with the separate criminal investigation into the act of torture. This can result in delays in trials and in the application of an inappropriate standard of proof. Increasingly, OSCE participating States have been introducing trial-waiver systems, where suspects admit guilt and waive their right to a trial in exchange for some form of benefit.3 If not properly regulated, trial-waiver systems can provide additional incentives for police to use torture to extract confessions or to coerce defendants, suspects and those accused into plea agreements. In waiving the right to a trial, suspects typically also waive their right to the proper scrutiny of evidence, including evidence of how they entered into the plea agreement, and most states require little, if any, corroborating evidence to conclude a plea agreement. The majority of OSCE participating States with trial waivers also employ some specific safeguards, such as access to a lawyer and judicial review. However, these safeguards alone are not sufficient to ensure that criminal justice actors are not incentivized to use trial waivers as quick ways to close cases without the same level of protections provided to suspects by the trial process. Police and prosecutors in some countries are put under pressure to reach a certain number of arrests and convictions through the use of performance quotas or targets. These quotas can affect pay and promotions, and this can incentivize police and other criminal justice actors to use any means necessary to reach their targets, including torture or other ill-treatment. In some countries, the use of conviction rates as an indicator 2 3 6 The exclusionary rule is codified in article 15 of the UNCAT and provides that “any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made. The “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine provides that evidence discovered due to information found through illegal search or other illegal means (such as a forced confession) may also not be introduced by a prosecutor. Fair Trials has defined a trial waiver as: “a process not prohibited by law under which criminal defendants agree to accept guilt and/or cooperate with the investigative authority in exchange for some benefit from the state, most commonly in the form of reduced charges and/or lower sentences.”