In a nutshell, the Principles aim to move away from coercive and confession-based questioning towards the promotion of rapport-based interviewing combined with the implementation of safeguards during criminal justice investigations and other forms of information gathering processes. Built on the premise that confession oriented criminal justice systems incur a higher risk of torture, the Principles do not merely reiterate international standards on the inadmissibility of evidence tainted by torture. Rather, they provide concrete guidance on how to implement this rule in practice. Notably, the Principles state that judicial authorities play an essential role in ensuring the effective implementation of such a rule, thereby calling for the removal of incentives for investigation authorities to obtain a confession by any means and promote the use of ethical and scientifically proven interviewing methods instead. Further, judicial authorities are called upon to ensure that only lawfully obtained evidence is admissible in any proceedings and accordingly to be vigilant to any signs that a statement may have been made under coercion or ill-treatment (Méndez Principles, Principle 6, paras. 218-219). The Principles also provide for a duty to report where criminal justice professionals see, hear of, or suspect interview-related wrongdoing. Similarly, considering that an over-reliance on confessions in judicial proceedings provides an improper incentive for interviewers to seek confessions as the sole objective, they call for a shift in the ultimate goal of an interview, with the objective being to collect reliable and accurate information and not a confession. (Méndez Principles, Principle 5, paras. 185187). Finally yet importantly, the Principles stress that excluding evidence obtained under torture or other ill-treatment is an interviewee’s right and accordingly it constitutes an effective remedy against wrongdoing by interviewers (Méndez Principles, Principle 5, para. 203). Conclusion As highlighted in this blog post, CSOs can play a crucial role in ensuring that the rule on the exclusion of evidence tainted by torture is effectively implemented in practice, both by intervening as third parties in judicial proceedings and by leading initiatives promoting new frameworks that best address existing shortcomings in the criminal justice system that prevent its full implementation. The examples cited here, however, represent only two of many more ways for CSOs to actively contribute to the effective implementation of the exclusionary rule in practice. Due to their independence and vital role in fostering consultative and transparent processes, CSOs are indeed in a unique position to act as traction forces for change and accordingly advocate for necessary reforms in both law and practice. In this context, discussions such as those organized by ODIHR and the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Fundamental and Human Rights are a particularly welcomed step as they provide the perfect opportunity for CSOs to exchange on new ideas with relevant stakeholders, identify potential avenues for cooperation and ultimately bring forward ongoing efforts to prevent torture. In this spirit, the APT looks forward to having a fruitful exchange with all the participants and continue working together on the prevention of torture. #TogetherWeCanEndTorture 33