A/73/207 (f) Exclusionary rule 29. The prohibition of torture and ill-treatment cannot be effectively guaranteed as long as evidence obtained through such abuse is admitted, de jure or de facto, in any national proceedings. 11 Although the exclusionary rule is clear, many States fail to provide for the investigative, forensic and judicial procedures necessary to identify and exclude such evidence. Other States allow for the exclusion only of evidence extracted under torture, although the exclusionary rule also applies to other forms of ill-treatment. 12 Moreover, in some States, evidence may be deemed admissible when obtained by torture or ill-treatment in a third State without the complicity of the first State, although the exclusionary rule applies irrespective of such factors (A/HRC/25/60, paras. 23–30). (g) Non-refoulement 30. States are under an absolute and non-derogable obligation not to remove, transfer or return any person to another State or territory where there are substantial grounds for believing that they would be in danger of being subjected to torture or ill treatment. 13 While non-refoulement protection under refugee law is limited to persons entitled to refugee status and allows for exceptions based on considerations of national or public security, no limitation or exception whatsoever is permissible where removal, transfer or return would expose the person in question to a real risk of torture or ill-treatment. However, most national immigration procedures do not sufficiently distinguish between the general, absolute and unconditional prohibition of refoulement in cases where there is a real risk of torture or ill -treatment and the conditional refoulement protection provided und er refugee law. A range of practices introduced by States as part of recent migration policies even point towards a deliberate erosion of good faith compliance with this cornerstone principle of international law (A/HRC/37/50, paras. 38–59). (h) Non-State actors 31. Violence and abuse is increasingly being inflicted by a wide variety of private actors, including not only organized criminals and organized armed groups, but also corporate actors, private contractors or individual citizens acting at the instigation or with the consent or acquiescence of State officials. National legislation is often inadequate in that regard and governments frequently fail to prevent such violence, protect potential victims, particularly in the context of domestic, sexual and genderbased violence, or remove legal barriers to escaping such violence and prosecuting its perpetrators (A/HRC/31/57). Moreover, as the trend towards privatizing functions of the State continues, many States fail to adequately regulate such services or establish jurisdiction over extraterritorial violations committed by contractors and other non-State actors under their instruction and control, or to discharg e their due diligence duties with regard to the extraterritorial acts of corporate actors established within their jurisdiction. __________________ 11 12 13 18-12051 Ibid. (art. 15). See Committee against Torture, general comment No. 2 (2008) on the implementation of article 2 by States parties (para. 6), and Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007) on article 14: the right to equality before the courts and tribunals and to a fair trial (para. 41). Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (art. 3). 9/23