measures could be taken to ensure that evidence obtained by torture and ill-treatment is not used in criminal proceedings. The current debate at the EU level regarding the admissibility of evidence could offer an interesting opportunity. With the adoption of legislation on EU crossborder investigations (e.g. Directive 2014/41/EU on the European Investigation Order), ensuring the admissibility of evidence gathered in another Member State at trial has become a crucial interest of the EU. Moreover, as the rules on the collection, use, and admissibility of evidence are currently left to the laws of the Member States, academics have argued in favor of a new legislative EU proposal laying down common rules for the admissibility and exclusion of evidence in criminal proceedings (https://eucrim.eu/articles/admissibility-evidencecriminal-proceedings-eu/). While the discussions at the EU level do not only concern evidence tainted by torture and ill-treatment but illegal evidence more broadly, they could offer an opportunity to conduct further research in the area and on fundamental rights challenges and promising practices in the EU area.  Academia and research institutes could research on exclusionary rules and how they are implemented in law and practice at the national level and issue evidence-based recommendation to national stakeholders. Based on these assessments, practical guides and training material could be developed to raise awareness about international standards and how to implement them into the national context. The development of such material can be particularly valuable if developed by/in close coordination with those who have to apply it in the first place. In Mexico, the Directorate General for Human Rights of the Supreme Court of Mexico has published a Protocol for judges on cases of Torture in 2021, including a chapter on exclusionary rules (see also below the contribution of Juan E. Méndez* “Torture-tainted evidence and the exclusionary rule”).27  Civil society organizations and relevant professional categories (e.g. judiciary and bar associations) should be closely involved in all initiatives mentioned above and can additionally develop joint efforts and initiatives to strengthen the operation of exclusionary rules. These could include strategic litigation before national and international courts, participating in the monitoring of the execution of international decisions, including by submitting opinions to the department for the Execution of ECtHR Judgments of the Council of Europe, as well as participation in UN treaty body procedures with alternative reports. Furthermore, they can engage in awareness raising and capacity-building activities and support in the gathering of data on the implementation of the rule and the development of practical guidance (see also below the contributions of Valentina Caledo and Tomás Pascual “Implementing the exclusionary rule in practice: the potential of civil society organisations”, Catherine Kent “Implementing the Exclusionary Rule: Procedural Aspects, the Role of the Legal Profession and National Law, Policy and Practice”). 27 Mexico: Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nacion, Protocolo para Juzgar Casos de Tortura y Malos Tratos, 2021 https://www.scjn.gob.mx/derechos-humanos/sites/default/files/protocolos/archivos/202201/Protocolo%20para%20juzgar%20casos%20de%20tortura%20y%20malos%20tratos.pdf 14