a formal motion to exclude forced confessions that the court reviews at trial (Amnesty International. No End in Sight: Torture and Forced Confessions in China (2015) pgs. 38-39). Ways forward Recognising that the independence of the legal profession is an essential guarantee for the protection and promotion of human rights and, specifically, the implementation of the exclusionary rule, States must ensure that judges, prosecutors and defence lawyers can conduct their work without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference (see, e.g., UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary (1985) [2, 4]). States should also adopt clear legislation, directives, codes of practice, instructions and guidance on procedures and mechanisms to identify, challenge, determine admissibility and exclude torturetainted evidence. Sharing examples of best practice and lessons learnt on the Atlas of Torture Exchange Platform is welcome in this regard. Said national laws, policies and practices should be readily known to, inter alia, judges, prosecutors and defence lawyers and should be fully implemented in practice. In this regard, human rights courts and bodies have required States to provide training to legal professionals on identifying and investigating forced confessions (see, e.g., UN Committee against Torture. Concluding Observations on Cambodia (20 January 2011) [28]), which can serve as a guarantee of non-repetition (InterAmerican Court of Human Rights. García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre v. Mexico. Judgment: Merits, Reparations and Costs (November 2013) [92-93]). 27