01185916 002119-09-2007-ECCC/SC Doc No. F26112 of Othman v. The United Kingdom. 91 The ECtHR recalled the House of Lords' finding that "the prohibition on receiving evidence obtained by torture is not primarily because such evidence is unreliable or because the reception of the evidence will make the trial unfair. Rather it is because 'the state must stand firm against the conduct that produced the evidence,,,.92 The ECtHR further held that: [N]o legal system based upon the rule of law can countenance the admission of evidence - however reliable - which has been obtained by such a barbaric practice as torture. The trial process is a cornerstone of the rule of law. Torture evidence damages irreparably that process; it substitutes force for the rule of law and taints the reputation of any court that admits it. Torture evidence is excluded to protect the integrity of the trial process and, ultimately, the rule oflaw itself. 93 45. The ECtHR concluded that relying on such evidence renders the trial as a whole immoral, illegal, and entirely flawed in its outcome. 94 The principles articulated in Othman v. The United Kingdom were confirmed in EI Haski v. Belgium 95 and Al Nashiri v. Poland. 96 The ECtHR's jurisprudence stresses systemic coherence with Article 15 of the CAT. 97 Of note is also the reference to "integrity of the process" and "reputation of the court", echoing the terms employed by exclusionary rules of international criminal courts and tribunals. 98 46. In sum, human rights bodies have found that the prohibition of the use of information derived through torture concerns any formal proceedings, whether judicial or administrative. 99 It further indicates that it is immaterial whether the act of torture was committed by the forum state or another state, 100 and whether the victim of torture is a party, Othman v. The United Kingdom, para. 264. Othman v. The United Kingdom, para. 264, citing Lord Philips in A. and Others v. Secretary oj'State (no. 2). 93 Othman v. The United Kingdom, para. 264. 94 Othman v. The United Kingdom, para. 267. 95 El Haski v. Belgium, para. 85. 96 Al Nashiri v. Poland, ECtHR, "Chamber Judgment", App. No. 28761111, 24 July 2014 ("AI Nashiri v. Poland"), para. 564. 97 Othman v. The United Kingdom, paras 253, 266; Jalloh v. Germany, para. 105. 98 See supra footnote 63; Giij'gen v. Germany, para. 175; Othman v. The United Kingdom, paras 253, 264, 266. See also, Olmstead v. US, 277 US 438 (1928), para. 484 (Brandeis J, diss), Elkins v. US, 364 US 206 (1960), paras 222-3, Herring v. US, 172 L Ed 2d 496 (2009), para. 512 (Ginsburg J, diss). 99 See also CAT Committee, G. K. v. Switzerland, Communication No. 21912002, CAT/C/30/D121912002, 7 May 2003 ("G. K. v. Switzerland"), para. 6.10, declaring that the "broad scope" of the prohibition in Article 15 of the CAT implies "an obligation for each State party to ascertain whether or not statements admitted as evidence in any proceedings for which it has jurisdiction, including extradition proceedings, have been made as a result of torture" (emphasis added); Conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture: 4th Periodic Report (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), CAT/CICRl33/3, 10 December 2004, paras 4(a)(i), 5(d); Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, U.N. Doc. A/59/324, 1 September 2004, para. 23. See also Manfred Nowak & Elizabeth McArthur, The United Nations Convention Against Torture: A Commentary, p. 530; Lord Bingham before the House of Lords in A. and Others v. Secretary oj'State (no. 2), paras 42-44. 100 Othman v. The United Kingdom, paras 263, 267; El Haski v. Belgium, paras 85, 86, 88, 89. 91 92 DECISION ON OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENT LISTS - FULL REASONS 21140