01185922 002/19-09-2007-ECCC/SC Doc No. F26/12 State,135 it must not be overlooked that in cases were the evidence was not collected by the State pursuing prosecution, as the State is in no better position than the accused person to show whether or not information was obtained through torture. 136 55. In conclusion, in addressing the question of proof applicable to the exclusionary rule, there seems to be agreement that, due to the unequal and often limited access to information possessed by public authorities, individuals cannot be expected to carry the full burden of establishing that a statement was procured through torture. The solution often rests on requiring the individual, in the first place, to advance a prima facie credible allegation that evidence was improperly obtained, in order to shift the burden of proof and trigger an inquiry by the court or the prosecution. The standard of proof applied at the next step, namely to "establish" that a statement falls under an exclusionary rule, is not well-articulated. The recent preference of human rights bodies is to exclude evidence upon the finding of a "real risk" of torture applied in relation to judicial systems that do "not offer meaningful guarantees of an independent, impartial and serious examination" of allegations of torture. 137 In that regard, as previously discussed,138 the ECtHR, the CAT Committee and the HR Committee are prepared to find that a statement was the result of torture, where the complainant alleged that he or she had been tortured and that torture was widespread, when this allegation was not rebutted by the State in question. 56. The Supreme Court Chamber considers that, in the context of the case before it, it can readily accept that there is a "real risk" that the S-2l Statements were obtained through torture. In this regard, the Supreme Court Chamber recalls that in Case 00 1 it sanctioned the conclusions reached at trial by finding that: [A]t S-2l, '[a] variety of torture techniques' for interrogation purposes 'were applied in an environment of extreme fear where threats were routinely put into practice and caused detainees severe pain and suffering, both physical and mental'. These interrogation methods included 'one proven instance of rape'. Furthermore, the Trial Chamber found that 'the S-2l interrogators [ ... ] who perpetrated acts of torture acted in 135 Special Rapporteur Report A1611259, para. 64; ECtHR in El Haski v. Belgium, para. 86 and Othman v. The United Kingdom, paras 274, 276; minority opinion by Lord Bingham in A. and Others v. Secretary o/State (no. 2), para. 60. 136 See A. and Others v. Secretary o/State (no. 2), paras 119, 125; Manfred Nowak & Elizabeth McArthur, The United Nations Convention Against Torture: A Commentary, p. 533. 137 El Haski v. Belgium, para. 88. m Supra paras 50-52. DECISION ON OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENT LISTS - FULL REASONS 27/40