The prohibition of the use of other evidence gathered or derived from information obtained by torture and other ill-treatment Similarly, there is the issue as to whether the exclusionary rule applies to other evidence gathered or derived from information obtained by torture and other ill-treatment. Here international standards are rather inconsistent. Even though the CAT Committee has never explicitly pronounced itself on the matter, its practice seems to accept that evidence deriving from torture and other ill-treatment may be covered by Article 15 and, thus, be considered inadmissible. For example, in the reporting procedure, it has required States Parties to report on “whether derivative evidence is admissible, if applicable in the State party’s legal system”.8 The ECtHR introduced different standards depending on whether the acts in question are to be classified as torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. It established that evidence deriving from the use of acts characterised as torture should never be relied on as proof of the victim’s guilt, irrespective of its probative value.9 However, for evidence deriving from the use of acts classified as inhuman or degrading treatment, but falling short of torture, it set up different standards, establishing that the admission of such evidence should be considered in violation of Article 6 ECHR only if the use of inhuman or degrading treatment had a bearing on the outcome of the proceedings against the defendant and impacted the defendant’s sentence in a decisive manner (see also below the contribution of Nikolaos Sitaropoulos “Unfair trial due to torture-tainted evidence - European Court of Human Rights’ judgments and their execution”).10 This binary approach has been criticised not only because the prohibition of torture and other forms of ill-treatment has been defined in previous caselaw as one of the most fundamental values of democratic societies, but also because in practice it may be difficult to distinguish between torture and other forms of ill-treatment. In Gäfgen v Germany, Judges Rozakis, Tulkens, Jebens, Ziemele, Bianku and Power described these tensions with enlightening words in a dissenting opinion: “10. The Court has repeatedly stated that Article 3 is an absolute right and that no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15 § 2 – even in the event of a public emergency. Being absolute, all violations thereof are serious and, in our view, the most effective way of guaranteeing that absolute prohibition is a strict application of the exclusionary rule when it comes to Article 6. Such an approach would leave State agents who are tempted to perpetrate inhuman treatment in no doubt as to the futility of engaging in such prohibited conduct. It would deprive them of any potential incentive or inducement for treating suspects in a manner that is inconsistent with Article 3. 11. We are mindful of the consequences that flow from a strict application of the exclusionary rule where violations of Article 3 are concerned … 12. …However, in our view, there is an equally vital, compelling and competing public interest in the preservation of the values of civilised societies founded upon the rule of law. In such societies, recourse to subjecting individuals to inhuman or degrading treatment, regardless of its purpose, can never be permitted. There is, in addition, a critical public interest in ensuring and maintaining the integrity of the 8 CAT Committee, ‘Concluding Observations: Germany’ (1998) UN Doc A/53/44, § 193; see also CAT Committee, GK v Switzerland, No. 219/2002, 7 May 2003, §§ 3.2, 6.9.; CAT, ‘General Guidelines Regarding the Form and Content of Initial Reports to be Submitted by States Parties under Article 19 of the Convention (2005) UN Doc CAT/C/4/Rev.3, § 24. 9 ECtHR, Jalloh v Germany, App no. 54810/00 (11 July 2006) § 105. 10 See ECtHR, Jalloh v Germany, App no. 54810/00 (11 July 2006) § 107 and ECtHR, Gäfgen v Germany, App no. 22978/05 (1 June 2010). For more information, see also Fair Trial/Redress, ‘Tainted by Torture: Examining the Use of Torture Evidence’ (2018) <https://www.fairtrials.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdf/Tainted-by-Torture-Examining-the-Use-of-EvidenceObtained-by-Torture.pdf >. 7