01185929 002119-09-2007-ECCC/SC Doc No. F26112 rights and interests that it protects are at the accused person's autonomous disposal. 157 In other instances the question of waiving an exclusionary rule must be resolved by balancing the competing interests based on considerations of necessity and proportionality.15s 64. In the opinion of this Chamber, the fact that Article 15 of the CAT does not list the right to a fair trial as its concern does not demonstrate that this right was left outside consideration as a relevant interest when adopting the provision. To the contrary, the choice not to limit its prohibitive language to evidence against a person 159 and its drafting history160 indicate that the exclusionary rule was not meant to be mitigated, generally, on account of the right to present a defence. In testing this proposition against the object and purpose of Article 15 of the CAT, as elucidated above, it has to be noted that the overarching goal of preventing torture would not be served by authorising the use of information obtained through torture in any other circumstances than those set out in the second sentence of the provision - because any act of legitimisation of such information as evidence weakens the prohibition and could develop a constituency with a vested interest in circulating statements obtained through torture. This said, the Supreme Court Chamber concedes that concerns of general deterrence are not persuasive in dismissing rights-based claims in individual cases, unless they would have been calculated into, and expressed through, categorical legislative decisions. Accordingly, the preventive rationale of Article 15 of the CAT would be valid for the present discussion only upon reading of its proscription as non-derogable. In any event, even if one assumed, for the sake of argument, that the preventive function of exclusionary rule stipulated by Article 15 of the CAT could be ceded in favour of the right to present a defence based on information obtained through torture, the right to defence would still compete with the imperative to not use evidence that is inherently unreliable, moreover, originates from an act not only denigrating human dignity, but also cruel and juris cogentis criminal. Moreover, 157 Such as statements taken in violation of the right to silence, or statements taken in the absence of the counsel where the accused was not advised of his rights. 15X See Al Nashiri v. Poland, para. 494, "It is to be recalled that even if there is a strong public interest in maintaining the secrecy of sources of information or material, in particular in cases involving the fight against terrorism, it is essential that as much information as possible about allegations and evidence should be disclosed to the parties in the proceedings without compromising national security. Where full disclosure is not possible, the difficulties that this causes should be counterbalanced in such a way that a party can effectively defend its interests". See also, A. and Others v. the United Kingdom, ECtHR, "Grand Chamber Judgment", App. No. 3455/05,19 February 2009, paras 216-218. 159 U.N. Economic and Social Council, Commission of Human Rights, 'Question of the Human Rights of All Persons Subjected to Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, in particular Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment', 35 th Session, UN Doc. No. E/CNAI1314, 10 December 1978, p. 18. See also, Special Rapporteur Report A1611259, paras 45-48, Special Rapporteur Report AlHRC125/60, para. 30. 160 Manfred Nowak & Elizabeth McArthur, The United Nations Convention Against Torture: A Commentary, p. 506-507. DECISION ON OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENT LISTS - FULL REASONS 34/40