36 Tainted by Torture: Examining the Use of Torture Evidence | 2018 145 Deolall v Guyana, CCPR/C/82/D/912/2000, 5 November2004; Singarasa v Sri Lanka, CCPR/C/81/D/1033/2001, 23 August 2004. 146 GK v Switzerland, para 6.10. 147 Singarasa v Sri Lanka. 148 This is effectively a ‘trial within a trial’ which is conducted in the absence of the jury to determine the admissibility of disputed evidence including, for example, confession evidence. 149 For example, Singarasa v Sri Lanka, para 7.4. 150 UN General Assembly, Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, 14 August 2006, A/61/259, para 47. 151 Ibid, para 65. 152 Ibid, para 47. 153 Ibid, para 65, referring to and disagreeing with the tests set out in A and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No. 2) [2005] UKHL 71, Prosecutor v El-Motassadeq (OLG Hamburg, 4. Strafsenat, Urteil, 2 StE 4/02–5), 19 Aug. 2005 and the Decision of the German Supreme Court of 4 March 2004, 3 StR 218/03. In the case of A and Others, the majority (four Law Lords out of seven) interpreted the term ‘established’ in Article 15 of the UN Convention Against Torture as requiring evidence to be excluded where it was ‘more likely than not’ that torture had been used to obtain it; in El-Motassadeq, certain testimonies were used despite the fact that serious doubts remained as to how they had been obtained. 154 UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, para 45(d). 155 El Haski v Belgium, App no. 649/08, (ECtHR, 25 September 2012), paras 88, 89. See also paras 92-99. 156 Cabrera-García and Montiel Flores v Mexico, Inter-American Court (2010), paras 176-177. 157 Habib v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2010] NSWCA 34, para 234. 158 R v Zhang [2000] NSWSC 1099. 159 Judgment of the Spanish Supreme Court No. 477/2013 (3 May 2013). 160 McCormick on Evidence (2016), supra note 50 at para 163. 161 Ibid. 162 2010 Exclusionary Rules, Article 11. 163 French Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 802. 164 D. Ormerod and D. Perry (eds.), Blackstone’s Criminal Practice 2018 (Oxford University Press, 2017), para F18.12. 165 James Richardson, Archbold: Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice 2018, 64th edn. (Sweet & Maxwell, 2017), chapter 15; R v Paris [1997] Cr.App.R. 99, where the Court of Appeal found that police shouting in a hostile and intimidating manner during an interview with the accused to be ‘oppressive’ under s.76(2)(a). 166 Ormerod and Perry, Blackstone’s Criminal Practice 2018, para F18.13. 167 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Section 76(3). 168 Ibid, Section 76(2). 169 R v Davis [1990] Crim. L.R. 860. 170 A and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) [2005] UKHL 71. 171 Ibid, para 121, per Lord Hope. 172 Ibid, para 121, per Lord Hope. 173 Ibid, para 59, per Lord Bingham. 174 For example, the Hanseatic Higher Regional Court re the case of Mr. El Motassadeq (Beschluss, 2 BJs 85/01 - 2 StE 4/02 - 5 - IV - 1/04 –), 14 June 2005; Diemer, Karlsruhe Commentary on the Criminal Procedure Code, 7th edn. (2013), section 136a, recital 38. 175 El Haski v Belgium. 176 Seymour M. Hersh, ‘Torture at Abu Ghraib’, The New Yorker, 10 May 2004. 177 Memorandum from John Yoo, Deputy Assistant Att’y Gen.to William J. Haynes II, Gen. Counsel, Dep’t of Def., 1 (March 14, 2003). 178 For example, the decision of 14 June 2005 of the Hanseatic Higher Regional Court (Beschluss IV - 1/04 des Hanseatischen Oberlandesgericht Hamburg, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2005 Heft 32) and the judgement of 19 August 2005, sentencing Mr. El Motassadeq to seven years’ imprisonment for membership of a terrorist organization (OLG Hamburg, 4. Strafsenat, Urteil, 2 StE 4/02-5). 179 Strafprozeßordnung (StPO), Section 136a(3). 180 UN Committee against Torture, Concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of Germany, 12 December 2011, CAT/C/DEU/CO/5, 12 December 2011, p.11. 181 A and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) [2005] UKHL 71. 182 Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, Part IV (now repealed). 183 Ibid. 184 A and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) [2005] 1 WLR 414. 185 Ibid, para 52. 186 UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (‘Istanbul Protocol’), 2004, HR/P/PT/8/Rev.1. 187 La Suprema Corte ha establecido este estándar en el amparo directo en revisión 4428/2014, de 17 de Febrero de 2016: ‘la autoridad judicial competente deberá ordenar de inmediato la realización de los exámenes pertinentes para el adecuado esclarecimiento de lo sucedido, dependiendo del tipo de maltrato alegado, aplicándose para ello lo previsto en el protocolo de Estambul, en la inteligencia que de no hacerlo, se vulnerarán las reglas esenciales del procedimiento’ (párr. 158). 188 Tesis XXVI.50 (V Region) 7 P (10a), October 2013.