9 1. 2. 3. 4. Given its crucial role in the prohibition on torture, the exclusionary rule should be accorded a more prominent role in the work undertaken to combat torture. In particular, we would urge the UN Committee Against Torture to produce a general comment on the topic. We recommend that domestic legal regimes be reviewed to ensure compliance with existing international standards on the exclusion of ‘torture evidence’. This should, for example, form a part of country reviews by relevant treaty monitoring bodies. Where states fail to remedy shortfalls in protection, this should become a focus for advocacy, including by domestic civil society actors. Clarity is needed on the extent to which the exclusionary rule covers derivative evidence and evidence obtained as a result of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This should be the focus of further research and we urge the UN Committee Against Torture to address these issues in a general comment. We urge those working to advance compliance with the exclusionary rule to consider what legal procedure is applied to identify and exclude ‘torture evidence’, taking account of applicable international standards on the right to a fair trial. Domestic legal regimes should, in particular, be reviewed to ensure compliance with international standards on the burden of proof for establishing whether evidence was obtained as a result of torture. 5. Concerns about reliance on ‘torture evidence’ will not be solved by changes to the law alone. We recommend approaches which address how the law is operating in practice. This should include the collection of statistical data on the application of exclusionary regimes as well as qualitative engagement with the stakeholders who are key to making the law work in practice. 6. Reducing reliance on confessions in criminal prosecutions has the potential to address a major driver of torture. We welcome the growing recognition that increasing respect for suspects’ procedural rights in the period following arrest is important to torture prevention. We recommend an increased focus on rights-compliant police investigations. 7. We recommend that states review the process for ensuring accountability where torture is identified in the course of proceedings to exclude evidence: this should not rely on a complaint by the victim. Similarly, whilst the exclusionary rule should be recognised in part as a means of reparation, it is not a sufficient form of remedy or reparation.