37 Chapter IV: Making the exclusionary rule effective in practice Even if countries have laws which align perfectly with international standards, this does not of course mean that, in practice, those standards are complied with. In this chapter, we look beyond the legal framework and explore some of the factors which affect whether exclusionary rules operate effectively in practice. IV.1. Data on the use of ‘torture evidence’ IV.1.1 Official statistics As well as understanding the laws in the countries we examined, we wanted to assess the extent to which they were being used in practice. We therefore asked researchers: what data is available on how frequently procedures to exclude evidence obtained by torture are used? One notable and disappointing conclusion was that this data is not available in any of the 17 countries examined.189 Given the importance of the prohibition on torture and the exclusionary rule, this is disappointing because data on the application of the exclusionary rule could, among other things, serve to: i) ii) identify whether the rule is being used in practice and whether there are any discrepancies in how it is being applied in different parts of a country – to inform, for example, the targeting of training programmes; and Please provide data on the number of confessions that were not admitted into evidence based […] on the grounds that they were made under compulsion, torture or threat’.190 At the time of publishing this report, Japan had not submitted its state party report due on 31 May 2017. IV.1.2 Expert observations In the absence of official data, we also examined whether NGOs and treaty-monitoring bodies were reporting instances of ‘torture evidence’ being admitted in criminal cases. It was notable how little research had been undertaken in this area. However, in a number of the countries examined, routine reliance on ‘torture evidence’ has been reported. i) assess the extent to which evidence obtained as a result of torture has been identified which could, for example, inform broader investigations into the systemic use of torture by particular police forces or other agents of the state and thereby to promote accountability. The importance of this data has been recognised by the UN Committee Against Torture which on occasion asks for data to be provided by states on the practical application of the exclusionary rule. For example, in 2015 in its list of issues prior to submitting its 2017 State Party report, the Committee requested that Japan provide: ‘[U]pdated information on steps taken to ensure, in practice, that confessions obtained under torture and illtreatment are inadmissible in courts, in all cases […]. In Indonesia, for example, the UN Committee Against Torture reported in 2008: ‘The Committee is deeply concerned about the numerous, ongoing credible and consistent allegations, corroborated by the Special Rapporteur on torture in his report (A/HRC/7/3/Add.7) and other sources, of routine and widespread use of torture and illtreatment of suspects in police custody, especially to extract confessions or information to be used in criminal proceedings’.191 Improvements to the legal regime on the exclusion of evidence were recommended to address this problem. ii) In Tunisia, several NGOs have noted the routine reliance still placed by the courts on evidence obtained by torture: