01185912 002/19-09-2007-ECCC/SC Doc No. F26/12 CAT Committee, whose interpretation of the treaty has been described as being "authoritative".72 Moreover, the interpretation of the CAT is facilitated by comparative analysis of similar international or regional human rights treaties and the case law and practice of human rights monitoring bodies. 73 In this respect, the relevant case law of the UN Human Rights Committee ("HR Committee") and the European Court of Human Rights ("ECtHR") is instructive, particularly in the area of the right to a fair trial, given the procedural focus of Article 15 of the CAT. Moreover, Article 32 of the VCLT permits recourse to supplementary means of interpretation, including the travaux pn?paratoires, in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of Article 31 of the VCLT, or to determine the meaning when the interpretation according to Article 31 of the V CL T leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure, or leads to a result, which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable. 40. The Supreme Court Chamber notes that the terms of the first sentence of Article 15 of the CAT are, as such, unambiguous when read together with Article 1 of the CAT, which defines torture as aimed, among other things, at extorting confessions or information. Article 15 of the CAT prohibits the use of information that was provided as a result of torture without any qualification whatsoever, other than the exception to the prohibition contained in its second sentence. The parties' propositions that the prohibition is more limited and principally does not extend over information favourable for the defence cannot be defended on the language of the provision alone and would, therefore, have to be vetted against the object and purpose of the exclusionary rule. In this regard, the Supreme Court Chamber recalls that the CAT defines its object and purpose in recognition of a person's inalienable human rights and inherent dignity, expresses the desire to render "more effective" the struggle against torture throughout the world,74 and reiterates the absolute and non-derogable nature of the prohibition against torture. 75 Any interpretation of the CAT, or of its integral parts, which includes Article 15, that would weaken the prohibition and prevention of torture must therefore be rejected. Moreover, in furtherance of the preventive objective and purpose, the CAT Committee has stressed that the state obligation to take effective preventive Manfred Nowak & Elizabeth McArthur, The United Nations Convention Against Torture: A Commentary, p. 12. 73 Manfred Nowak & Elizabeth McArthur, The United Nations Convention Against Torture: A Commentary, p. 12. 74 See Preamble of the CAT. 75 See Preamble and Article 2(2) of the CAT. 72 DECISION ON OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENT LISTS - FULL REASONS 17/40