01185915 002/19-09-2007-ECCC/SC Doc No. F26/12 43. Against this background, a fairly recent development in the jurisprudence favours the broad exclusion of information obtained through torture, based on fundamental precepts of rights-based ethics. The ECtHR, which usually focuses on assessing the overall fairness of proceedings and refrains from making determinations regarding particular types of evidence,86 made an exception in respect of the use of evidence obtained in breach of the prohibition of torture. The Grand Chamber of the ECtHR held that the use of evidence that was "secured as a result of a violation of one of the core and absolute rights guaranteed by the Convention" to establish the relevant facts rendered the proceedings as a whole unfair, irrespective of the probative value of the evidence and whether it was decisive for securing the accused person's conviction. 87 In another case, the Grand Chamber found that accepting the use in criminal proceedings of incriminating evidence that was obtained "as a result of acts of violence or brutality or other forms of treatment which can be characterised as torture [ ... ] would only serve to legitimate indirectly the sort of morally reprehensible conduct which the authors of Article 3 of the [European Convention on Human Rights] sought to proscribe" or "to afford brutality the cloak of law". 88 44. In relation to non-criminal cases, the British case A. and Others v. Secretary of State 9 (no. 2/ is of seminal importance. In that case, the House of Lords considered whether an administrative body deciding on deportation could lawfully admit evidence which was, or may have been, obtained through the torture of persons other than those who were the subject of the deportation proceedings, in another state and without the complicity of British officials. On the basis of the Common Law, the jurisprudence of ECtHR, and public international law, including Article 15 of the CAT, the House of Lords concluded that it could not, as torture evidence is "offensive to ordinary standards of humanity and decency and incompatible with the principles which should animate a tribunal seeking to administer justice".90 This holding and the reasons underpinning it were upheld by the ECtHR in the case Khan v. The United Kingdom, ECtHR, "Chamber Judgment", App. No. 35394/97, 12 May 2000 ("Khan v. The United Kingdom"), para. 34. X7 See Giij'gen v. Germany, paras 165-166. See also Desde v. Turkey, ECtHR, "Chamber Judgment", App. No. 23909/03, 1 February 2011, paras 125-126, 132; Othman (Aby Qatada) v. The United Kingdom, ECtHR, "Chamber Judgment", App. No. 8139/09, 17 January 2012 ("Othman v. The United Kingdom"), paras 263-267. X8 Jalloh v. Germany, para. 105, citing to the US Supreme Court judgment in Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), paras 10-12.; Harutyunyan v. Armenia, ECtHR, "Chamber Judgment", App. No. 36549/03, 28 June 2007, para. 63. X9 A. and Others v. Secretary oj'Statefor the Home Department (no. 2), [2005] UKHL 71 ("A. and Others v. Secretary oj'State (no. 2),,), paras 116-118. 90 Lord Bingham in A. and Others v. Secretary oj'State (no. 2), paras 35-52. X6 DECISION ON OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENT LISTS - FULL REASONS 20/40