112. Human rights defenders facing charges are entitled to the full range of fair trial safeguards under international human rights law and relevant OSCE commitments.156 They are entitled to an effective remedy and adequate reparation where any of their fair trial rights have been violated. In particular, allegations that a confession has been extracted under duress including torture, which constitutes a flagrant violation of the right to a fair trial, must be promptly, effectively, independently and impartially investigated, while the use of any evidence, including statements by witnesses, obtained under torture and other ill-treatment must be excluded by the judiciary.157 113. The UN Human Rights Council has called on states to ensure that “[p]rocedural safeguards, including in criminal cases against human rights defenders, are in place in accordance with international human rights law in order to avoid the use of unreliable evidence, unwarranted investigations and procedural delays, thereby effectively contributing to the expeditious closing of all unsubstantiated cases, with individuals being afforded the opportunity to lodge complaints directly with the appropriate authority”.158 114. In accordance with their OSCE commitments, participating States should further strengthen judicial independence in order to minimize the risk of politically-motivated judicial action or skewed judgement due to influences external to the court. In particular, participating States should allow and encourage the presence of trial observers at court proceedings as a mechanism to monitor the practical implementation of fair trial rights. In this regard, participating States have decided to accept “as a confidence-building measure the presence of observers sent by participating States and representatives of non-governmental organizations and other interested persons at proceedings before courts.”159 Furthermore, they have stated that “it is understood that proceedings may only be held in camera in the circumstances prescribed by law and consistent with obligations under international law and international commitments.”160 Accordingly, courts should also be obliged to make hearing schedules and other relevant documents, such as judgements, accessible to the public, in order to guarantee the transparency of proceedings. 156  See, for example: Vienna 1989; Copenhagen 1990; Ljubljana 2005; and Helsinki 2008. 157  International human rights mechanisms have expressed concern in a number of cases where human rights defenders have allegedly been subjected to torture to extract a confession. For example, following his visit to Kyrgyzstan, the UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment stated that: “The decision of the Supreme Court of 20 December 2011 upholding the life sentence for prominent human rights defender Azimjan Askarov and other defendants convicted in relation to the violence of June 2010, despite reports of his torture in detention and defendants’ claims that confessions had been extracted under duress, is an example of the highest judicial body’s failure to act on allegations of torture and ill-treatment. The recent decision of the Supreme Court of 9 December 2011, which upheld the lower instance courts’ ruling on the acquittal of four policemen prosecuted for torturing the victim, even though there was sound medical evidence in the record of savage acts of torture, is yet another discouraging example of a failed administration of justice.” See A/HRC/19/61/Add.2, 21 February 2012, para. 49. 158  See UN Human Rights Council Resolution A/HRC/RES/22/6, para. 11(c). 159  Copenhagen, 1990, para. 12. 160  Ibid. Guidelines on the Protection of Human Rights Defenders 61