GUIDE ON ANTI-TORTURE LEGISLATION In Uganda, the Prevention and Prohibition of Torture Act provides that “any information, confession or admission obtained from a person by means of torture is inadmissible in evidence against person in any proceeding (…)”. 82 82 9. The Committee considers that the exclusionary rule is to be extended to evidence derived by CIDTP While article 15 of the Convention only references the exclusion of statements obtained through torture, the Committee has taken the view that article 15 is obligatory “as applied to both torture and ill-treatment.”83 This view is strongly supported outside the Convention framework as well, in particular by the UN Special Rapporteur on torture84 and by the UN Human Rights Committee that has also recommended in a General Comment that this rule extends to “other prohibited treatment” to discourage any violations of the general prohibition of torture.85 The European Court on Human Rights explicitly held that the use of statements obtained as a violation of article 3 (prohibition of torture and CIDTP) render the proceedings an automatic breach of the right to a fair trial, “irrespective of the classification of the treatment as torture, inhuman or degrading treatment.”86 The Inter-American Court on Human Rights has not been so explicit, but has read CIDTP to be part of their article 10 on the exclusionary rule. 87 Other authoritative documents on torture, including the Robben Island Guidelines and the 1975 General Assembly Declaration against Torture, explicitly include CIDTP as well.88 89 In Germany, the criminal procedure code explicitly states that the exclusionary rule applies to evidence obtained under CIDTP. 89 10. The Committee considers that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to show that evidence was collected lawfully, where there is an allegation that evidence was obtained by torture Article 15 of the Convention requires that a statement be excluded if it is “established” to be elicited by torture, but does not address which party holds the burden of proof on this issue. The Committee places the burden on the State to ascertain 82 Uganda, the Prevention and Prohibition of Torture Act, op. cit. 28, section 14. 83 CAT, General Comment N°2, op. cit. 1, §§ 3 and 6. See also the CAT report on its Confidential Art. 20 inquiry in Turkey, UN Doc. A/48/44/Add.1, § 28. 84 UN Special Rapporteur on torture, Interim Report to the General Assembly, UN Doc. A/59/324 (1 September 2004), §§ 13-16; See also J. Herman Burgers and Hans Danelius, op. cit. 33, p. 148. 85 CCPR, General Comment N°20 on Article 7, HRI/GEN/1/Rev.9 (Vol. I), § 12. 86 ECtHR, El Haski v. Belgium, App N°649/08 (25 September 2012), § 85. IACtHR, Teodoro Cabrera Garcia and Rodolfo Montiel Flores v. Mexico, Case N°12, 449 (26 November 2010), §§ 134–136. 87 88 African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights, Robben Island Guidelines: Resolution On Guidelines and Measures for the Prohibition and Prevention of Torture, Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment In Africa (2008), article 4; UNGA Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, GA Res. 3452 (XXX), Annex, 9 Dec. 1975, article 12. 89 Germany, Criminal Procedure Code, as amended by Act of 23.4.2014, section 136(a), available at http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stpo/ (last accessed in February 2016). 29