Despite the fact that the CPT in recent years continued to encounter instances of ill-treatment during police interviews in a significant number of European states, as noted earlier, certain states appear to be determined to take firm action in order to fight torture and other forms of ill-treatment by law enforcement which seems to be the major source of the problem in practice. This is illustrated by a number of European states’ decision or plan to abolish prescription for acts of torture (this has happened in 2021 in Armenia, Romania and North Macedonia and earlier in Moldova and Turkey), or high-level political statements showing determination to eradicate police ill-treatment (in March 2021, the Greek Prime Minister during his speech in Parliament expressed the state’s determination to address the causes and its strong commitment to setting the stage for a change of culture among law enforcement officers; Sidiropoulos and Papakostas group of cases v. Greece). This trend is encouraging, promising further alignment of national criminal law and practice with the fundamental values concerning human dignity and one’s right to a fair trial. DAY 1 – ILZE TRALMAKA Ilze Tralmaka* “Reducing reliance on torture evidence” *Senior Legal and Policy Officer, Fair Trials International law prohibits reliance on ‘torture evidence’ for multiple reasons. Firstly, the statements made as result of torture are involuntary, inherently unreliable and violate the right to a fair trial. Secondly, to rely on such evidence undermines the rights of the torture victim. Thirdly, it indirectly legitimises torture and in so doing taints the justice system and finally, prohibiting reliance on fruits of torture acts as a form of deterrence and prevention. In reality, however, reliance on torture evidence or at least evidence obtained indirectly from torture is still being used in criminal justice systems around the world (Fair Trials and REDRESS, Tainted by Torture. Examining the Use of Torture Evidence, 2018, pp.15-25). Despite a clear exclusionary rule applicable to statements obtained by torture on the international and regional level (Article 15 CAT, see also ECtHR, Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], App. No. 22978/05, 1 June 2010, § 166) some countries do not prohibit reliance on torture evidence at all. More commonly, countries have some form of exclusionary rule in respect of torture evidence, but such rules tend to be incomplete and fail to meet the key components of the rule as defined by international law (Fair Trials and REDRESS, op. cit, p. 59). There is also confusion about the scope of application of the exclusionary rule to other forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and to the evidence obtained indirectly from torture and other forms of ill-treatment (Fair Trials and REDRESS, op. cit., p. 59). This means that in practice, torture evidence is still used in criminal trials around the globe. Prevention Focusing on post-factum remedies such as the application of the exclusionary rule alone will not solve the problem. In addition to a strong exclusionary rule, ending reliance on torture evidence calls for systemic solutions which remove the incentives for coercive investigation techniques in the first place. First and foremost, interviewing must be conducted with all appropriate procedural rights and safeguards. The presence of a lawyer in the interview is an essential safeguard against torture and other forms of ill-treatment (Fair Trials and REDRESS, op. cit., p. 49). The presence of a lawyer in 19