threatening suspects, through the use of investigative interviews as promoted in the recent Mendez Principles for Effective Interviewing. But the human rights advocate in me wonders: what would be the impact if we ran a concerted five year campaign to introduce a robust reversal of proof in 50 jurisdictions? And give other 20-something junior prosecutors the same challenge that I faced to persuade the judge that torture had not taken place? DAY 2 – CATHERINE KENT Catherine Kent* “Implementing the Exclusionary Rule: Procedural Aspects, the Role of the Legal Profession and National Law, Policy and Practice” * Programme Lawyer, International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (Twitter Handle: @Ibahri) The exclusionary rule is clearly enshrined in international law, standards and norms (see, e.g., Article 15, UN Convention against Torture (UNCAT); Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture, Juan E. Méndez (April 2014) [17, 22]). Despite this, a gap in national implementation remains and routine reliance on torture-tainted evidence persists, including in countries with an express exclusionary regime (REDRESS and Fair Trials. Tainted by Torture: Examining the Use of Torture Evidence 1 (2018) pgs. 8, 37-38). This blog post outlines procedural aspects of domestic implementation in law, policy and practice in the context of judicial proceedings and highlights the role of the legal profession in upholding the exclusionary rule to prevent the admissibility of torture-tainted evidence. Domestic frameworks Many countries’ legislative frameworks contain normative provisions regarding the exclusionary rule (see, e.g., APT and CTI. Guide on anti-torture legislation (2016) pg. 28). However, international human rights law permits States discretion regarding the specific nature of exclusionary procedures (Fair Trials and OSCE ODIHR. Eliminating incentives for torture in the OSCE region: Baseline study and practical guidance (2020) (hereinafter “Eliminating Incentives Report” [36]). As noted by the Convention against Torture Initiative (CTI): “States have developed, in accordance with their laws and judicial practices, various processes to exclude evidence obtained by torture or ill-treatment. Some States adopt a two-stage process: an initial stage of triggering an exclusion procedure, either requiring a credible complaint of torture or illtreatment, or initiated by the judge; and second, a stage of establishing whether the material at issue was obtained by torture or ill-treatment.” (CTI. UNCAT Exclusionary Rule Tool 8/2020: Non-Admission of Evidence Obtained by Torture and Ill-Treatment: Procedures and Practices (2020) (hereinafter “CTI Tool 8/2020”) pg. 9.) This can occur at different points in judicial proceedings, including during pre-trial/preliminary hearings or as a “trial within a trial” (voir dire). Such an approach ensures that the defendant can testify about the admissibility of evidence without the risk of self-incrimination from cross-examination on matters that could influence a guilty verdict (CTI Tool 8/2020, pg. 9). 24