01185925 002/19-09-2007-ECCC/SC Doc No. F26/12 regard, it is noteworthy that the CAT Committee has frequently called upon States Parties to the CAT to fully align their domestic legislation with the precise wording of Article 15 of the CAT. 148 The CAT Committee has also expressed concern about the use of torture-tainted evidence in jurisdictions where broad exclusionary rules in full conformity with Article 15 of the CAT were in place. 149 However, NUON Chea's argument that State practice would of the investigation of the case at hand, the inadmissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings may also result from other norms, including the Basic Law (see, for example, German Federal Consitutional Court, Second Senate, decision of 14 September 1989, case no. 2 BvR 1062/87, regarding the exclusion of evidence relating to the protected core sphere of privacy) and Article 15 of the CAT (see El Motassadeq, paras 9 et seq.). In Denmark, the same E.U. Opinion that states that unlawfully obtained evidence favourable to the defence must be admitted as a general rule also comments that "the courts increasingly tend to disregard unlawfully obtained evidence in criminal cases" (E.U. Opinion, p. 12). There is no caselaw cited in the E.U. Opinion on Denmark to specify how the unlawful evidence was obtained, the majority of examples cited in the document involve violations to the right to privacy. The CAT Committee has been critical of Denmark's incorporation of the Convention into domestic law under its dualist system, "[t]he Committee regrets that the State party has not changed its position with regard to the incorporation of the Convention into Danish law (Conclusions and Recommendations of the Committee Against Torture (Denmark), CAT/CIDNKlCO/5, 16 July 2007, para. 9). The CAT Committee makes no mention of Article 15, nor the use of unlawfully obtained evidence when reviewing Greece's country reports, but it considered "[Greece's compliance with the Convention] satisfactory, but some of its members also considered it to be one of the most advanced legislations in Europe" (CAT Committee, Second Periodic Reports of States Parties due in 1993 (Addendum Greece), CAT/CI20IAdd.2, 16 December 1993, para. 3). Neither of the Canadian cases cited by the Defence involves torture tainted evidence. In the first, R v. Mills [1999] 3 SCR 668 (Canada) the Supreme Court upheld as constitutional Sections 278.1 to 278.91 of the Canadian Criminal Code, which balance the right of the accused to make a full defence with the right to privacy of a victim's records in cases of sexual assault. The second case, Basaillon v. Keable, [1983] 2 SCR 60 (Canada), balanced the secrecy rule regarding police informers' identity with the singular exception to demonstrate the innocence of an accused person in a criminal trial. The Supreme Court of Canada had previously recognised in R v. Seaboyer, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577, p. 611 the difference between excluded evidence tendered by the prosecution and similar evidence tendered by the defence. Cautious guidance on the admissibility of evidence by the defence that is typically ruled out due to an exclusionary rule, favours the fair trial right of the accused to be presumed innocent. "[T]he prejudice must substantially outweight the value of the evidence" before disallowing evidence raised by the defendant. 14X For example, "The Committee recommends that [Finland] enact legislation specifically prohibiting the use of statements obtained under torture as evidence and elements of proof in conformity with Article 15 of the Convention", (CAT Committee, Concluding Observations of the Committee Against Torture (Finland), CAT/C/FIN/CO/5-6, 29 June 2011, para. 21); "[Israel] should prohibit by law that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture cannot be invoked as evidence in any proceedings against the victim, in line with Article 15", (Concluding Observations of the Committee Against Torture (Israel), CAT/C/ISRlCO/4, 23 June 2009, para. 25); "[Morocco should] incorporate a provision prohibiting any statement obtained under torture from being invoked as evidence in any proceedings, in conformity with Article 15 of the Convention", (Conclusions and Recommendations of the Committee Against Torture (Morocco), CAT/CICRl3112, 5 February 2004, para. 6(h)); "[the United Kingdom's] law has been interpreted to exclude the use of evidence extracted by torture only where the State party's officials where complicit" in contravention of the precise meaning of Article 15; (Conclusions and Recommendations of the Committee Against Torture (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), CAT/CICRl33/3, 10 December 2004, para. 4); "[Sweden must] ensure that the prohibition on the use of statements obtained by torture as evidence in proceedings is clearly formulated in domestic law", (Conclusions and Recommendations of the Committee Against Torture (Sweden), CAT/CICRl28/6, 6 June 2002, para. 7(h)). 149 For example, Article 21 of the Russian Constitution offers a broad, non-derogable prohibition against torture and Article 50(2) prohibits the use of evidence in violation of federal law whereas in accordance with Article 75 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, evidence obtained in breach of the Code is inadmissible, has no legal force and cannot be used as the basis of an indictment or to substantiate the material facts of a case, However, "[t]he Committee is concerned about numerous allegations that persons deprived of their liberty were subjected to torture or ill-treatment for the purpose of compelling a forced confession, and that such confessions were subsequently admitted as evidence in court in the absence of a thorough investigation into the torture DECISION ON OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENT LISTS - FULL REASONS 30/40