and, if the crime is serious enough, the defendant would spend that time in preventive detention. A proper application of the exclusionary rule should be prompt, as it is an important way to operationalize the presumption of innocence. If a confession is excluded, the proceedings should continue if backed by other evidence, including the holding of a trial and a decision to convict or acquit. Even if the court eventually acquits by excluding crucial evidence, the person may have spent four or five years in prison on the basis of torture-tainted evidence. It is important, therefore, to conduct an autonomous and prompt investigation specifically on the claim of torture and, if proven, the resulting evidence – and other evidence derived from the mistreatment – must be excluded ab initio. Encouraging developments In Mexico, the Supreme Court in 2014 issued a non-binding directive called Protocolo de Actuacion en casos de Tortura that was addressed to lower courts on how to act in cases where torture is alleged or where a magistrate presumed that unlawful methods may have been part of the investigation. This directive was thorough and detailed but its non-binding character probably resulted in a very limited impact in the practice of lower courts. In 2017 the Congress passed a very comprehensive law called Ley General sobre Tortura that, among other things, applies not only in the federal system but is mandatory in all States of the federation (Ley General para Prevenir, Investigar y Sancionar la Tortura y Otros Tratos o Penas Crueles, Inhumanos o Degradantes, 16 July 2017). In November 2021 the Supreme Court issued another directive reasserting the 2014 Protocol, this time with more detailed and complete instructions than in the 2014 directive (Corte Suprema de Justicia, Protocolo para Juzgar Casos de Tortura y Malos Tratos, www.scjn.gob.mx). It is expected that it will result in more practical and expeditious ways for higher courts to supervise and control how lower courts implement the exclusionary rule as well as the obligation to investigate, prosecute, and punish torture. In Brazil, the Supreme Court also instituted a system of Audiencias de custodia in 2015. It was also done by means of a non-binding directive to State and federal courts below. Significantly, however, in a matter of months several State courts had implemented the system and in later years it has been extended to the whole country. In essence, the practice is now that, within 24 hours of deprivation of liberty, the detained individual has to be brought before a court so that a magistrate can: 1) determine the legality of the arrest; 2) decide whether action is needed regarding detention conditions, interrogation, etc. A doctor is available who can conduct a medical examination under the Istanbul Protocol if a claim of torture is made or if the magistrate has reason to believe that mistreatment has occurred. Despite the fact that, for now, courts continue to accept a broad and questionable standard of flagrante delicto as justification of arrests, the system of custody hearings is by all accounts functioning smoothly and efficiently. Also in Brazil, the Court of Appeals (Fourth Criminal Chamber) of the State of Rio de Janeiro issued a historic decision on 15 February 2022, in a case known as Sala Vermelha (“Red room”). The decision upheld the lower court acquittal of six young men detained by Army agents in 2018. They had been taken to a military facility upon arrest – for which the Court found no justification in law – and they had confessed to crimes under torture. The appellate decision established clearly that torture had occurred, as had been certified by a lower court in the opportune moment at the custody hearing. In March 2019 all suspects had been reexamined at the Medico-Legal Institute, with the assistance of international forensic experts, at which time the detainees were found to be suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder as a consequence of the torture they had endured. 30