01185930 002/19-09-2007-ECCC/SC Doc No. F26/12 it must be noted that the use of such evidence would once again inflict prejudice upon the torture victim's human dignity. These all are valid legal interests, which beg the question of reconcilability of such evidence with the operation of a court of law, not just regarding statements extorted from third parties but even if the accused wished to use, or conceded to the use of, his own statements extorted through torture. As such, the proportionality test used to balance the interests at stake will usually result in rejecting evidence obtained through torture, even if it may assist the defence. An exception could potentially arise in situations of extreme necessity, based on the combined factors of the provenience of evidence,161 its reliability,162 its overwhelming exonerating value and its uniqueness, i. e., where, despite the considerations set out above, the exclusion of information obtained through torture would prejudice the right to present a defence to such an extent that proceeding with the prosecution without admitting the evidence in question would amount to a flagrant denial of justice. 65. The Supreme Court Chamber cannot categorically exclude that there may be rare and extreme cases where departing from the exclusionary rule is thinkable, the case at hand is certainly not one of them. At issue here is whether the S-2l Statements may be used during the July 2015 Hearing for the limited purpose of examining three witnesses on appeal. Thus, at most, the S-2l Statements would be used to confront a witness and elucidate further information. There is no indication whatsoever that not allowing the use of the S-2l Statements for this purpose would significantly prejudice the defence or come even close to a flagrant denial of justice. E. 66. Can the Co-Prosecutors use the S-21 Statements to prove facts unrelated to the truth of the contents thereof? The Co-Prosecutors similarly seek to restrict the application of Article 15 of the CAT, albeit in a different direction. They incorporate, by reference, their submissions before the Trial Chamber in Case 002/02,163 and contend that the exclusionary rule does not apply when the statements extracted under torture are being used to prove facts unrelated to the truth of the matter "confessed", for instance, that S-21 prisoners were interrogated about hiding or 161 Whether evidence has been produced by the prosecuting state or a third entity is, in this aspect, immaterial. It must be stressed that torturing for collection of evidence may never be condoned. Rather, the issue concerns information readily put before an organ of criminal procedure deciding on its use even without it having had a part in the collection of evidence, and whether exonerating information could be ignored. 162Reliability of torture-extracted statements remains a central question. It usually does not, however, arise in relation to real evidence obtained from the victim, either directly (el Jalloh v. Germany) or on the basis of an extorted statement (el Giilgen v. Germany). 163 Co-Prosecutors' Objections, para. 5. DECISION ON OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENT LISTS - FULL REASONS 35/40