01185917 002/19-09-2007-ECCC/SC Doc No. F26/12 or otherwise participant, to the proceedings. 101 Whereas the ECtHR goes only so far as to stress the fundamental nature of the prohibition against the use of evidence obtained by torture,102 the position of the CAT Committee is that the exclusionary rule, which is a function of the absolute nature of the prohibition of torture, is absolute and non-derogable. 103 47. In light of the object and purpose so understood, the Supreme Court Chamber considers that the terms of Article 15 of the CAT are to be read so as to give full effect to the exclusionary rule. Accordingly, subject only to the exception set out in the second sentence of Article 15 of the CAT, information obtained as a result of torture is inadmissible as evidence, even if it is relevant to the subject of the proceedings and may have some probative value. The exclusionary rule covers the direct tendering of the extorted information into evidence, the use of its recording, irrespective of its form, as well as reproducing its content through witness testimony. Furthermore, the effect of the exclusionary rule is that statements falling under it may not be used to prove the truth of its content or even to imply that it might be truthful, for instance by confronting a witness with it. c. 48. Has it been established that the S-21 Statements were extracted by torture? As recalled above, Article 15 of the CAT requires excluding from evidence "any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture". 104 In this vein, the Co-Prosecutors submit that a fact-finder must first determine that the evidence in question was actually derived from torture before it may be excluded on that basis. l05 They contend that the evidence in Case 002/02 is "overwhelming" that all S-2l prisoners were tortured, but note that such evidence is very limited in Case 002/0l. 106 Accordingly they request, for the purpose of deciding whether the S-2l Statements may be used during the July 2015 Hearing, that the Supreme Court Chamber "determine if this is a fact in dispute among the parties or can be resolved by a stipulation". 107 KHIEU Samphiin, in tum, argues that evidence must be Othman v. The United Kingdom, para. 262; El Haski v. Belgium, para. 85. Othman v. The United Kingdom, paras 253-255; El Haski v. Belgium, para. 70. 103 See General Comment No.2, para. 6, on the implementation of Article 2 of the CAT by States parties, specifying that "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever ... may be invoked as a justification of torture", the exclusionary rule contained in Article 15 of the CAT and the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in Article 16 are "three provisions of the Convention that must be observed in all circumstances". Similarly, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Juan E. Mendez, U.N. Doc. A/HRCI25/60, 10 April 2014 ("Special Rapporteur Report A/HRCI25/60"), para. 17. 104 Emphasis added. 105 Co-Prosecutors' Objections, para. 7. 106 Co-Prosecutors' Objections, para. 7. 107 Co-Prosecutors' Objections, para. 7. 101 102 DECISION ON OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENT LISTS - FULL REASONS 22/40