01185926 002/19-09-2007-ECCC/SC Doc No. F26/12 demonstrate, in the sense of Article 31 of the VCLT, an agreed interpretation on restricting Article 15 of the CAT to evidence adduced in support of prosecution, is without merit. 62. The real issue before the Supreme Court Chamber is whether the exclusionary rule of Article 15 of the CAT covers information obtained through torture when used for the purpose of defence, i.e. where the right against self-incrimination and the risk of a conviction based upon unreliable evidence are not in question. Further, even if such use came into the exclusionary rule's purview, the question is whether the reasons underlying the prohibition may be balanced against the right to present a defence in individual instances. 63. In this regard, it falls to be considered that, unlike the right to a trial fair as a whole and the right to an independent and impartial tribunal, the right to present evidence as a component of the right to a fair trial is not absolute. Given that the accused is protected mainly by the presumption of innocence, the right to remain silent and the right to test evidence against him or her, the right to present evidence may become subject to limitations aimed at protecting other values and interests, such as expeditiousness and integrity of proceedings. Recalling that rules of evidence and exclusionary rules are usually not established by international human rights standards, but at the municipal level, it is noteworthy that they do not only have the purpose of protecting the accused from prejudice, but also, by eliminating certain means of proof or certain facts from proving, they protect, among other things, allegations", the reliability of evidence,150 the confidentiality of judicial (Concluding Observations on the Fifth Periodic Report of the Russian Federation, CAT/C/RUS/CO/5, 11 December 2012, para. 10). In Poland, pursuant to Article 171 the Code of Criminal Procedure it is prohibited to influence the statement of the examined person through coercion or unlawful threat, or through the application of "hypnosis or chemical or technical means affecting the psychological processes of the examined person or aimed at influencing unconscious reactions of his organism in connection with the examination" (Code of Criminal Procedure Act, 6 June 1997, amended 1 July 2015, Art. 171(4)(2)) and explanations, testimony and declarations obtained in conditions excluding free deposition do not constitute evidence (Art. 171(6)). In this regard, however, the CAT Committee stated that it "regrets that, despite its previous recommendations [ ... ] the State party still maintains its position on not incorporating the provisions of the Convention [ ... ] into domestic law", (CAT Committee, Concluding Observations on the Combined Fifth and Sixth Periodic Reports of Poland, CAT/C/POLlCO/5-6, 23 December 2013, para. 7). 150 An example for this is the prohibition of hearsay evidence that exists in several jurisdictions. See Rule 802 of the United States Federal Rules of Evidence, which provides that "[h]earsay is not admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise: a federal statute; these rules; or other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court" (Fed. R. Evid. 403); Section 114(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Chapter 44) in the United Kingdom provides that "[i]n criminal proceedings a statement not made in oral evidence in the proceedings is admissible as evidence of any matter stated if, but only if- a) any provision of this Chapter or any other statutory provision makes it admissible, [ ... ] d) the court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice for it to be admissible"; In Hong Kong the hearsay rule was imported from the British common law and was reaffirmed in Wong Wai-man & Others v. HKSAR, (2000) 3 HKCFAR 322, para. 327 (Report: Hearsay in Criminal Proceedings, The Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong (November 2009), paras 1.9,3.3). There is no statutory provision excluding hearsay evidence in Canada but the exclusionary rule is well-established in case law, "exceptions to the exclusionary rule were largely crafted around those circumstances where the dangers of receiving the evidence DECISION ON OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENT LISTS - FULL REASONS 31140