In a thematic report on torture-tainted evidence that I presented in my capacity as UN Special Rapporteur on Torture I advocated for this more protective, teleological interpretation of the words of Article 15 (Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture, A/HRC/25/60, 10 April 2014). In addition, Article 15 does not mention torture obtained by methods that constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, i.e., ill-treatment that does not meet the intensity or specific intent required for torture. For its part, Article 16, in defining that kind of ill-treatment, makes applicable to it various preceding articles, although not specifically mentioning the exclusionary rule. However, the list of other provisions that are applicable to CIDT is preceded by the words “…in particular…”, which can only mean that the list is not meant to be exhaustive. And the provisions of fair trial in general International Human Rights law make it clear that any and all forms of coercion are prohibited and must therefore be subject equally as torture to the exclusionary rule. Regional courts have made this obligation to exclude evidence obtained by means short of torture, albeit with various scopes of application (ECtHR, Gafgen v Germany, 1 June 2010; IACtHR, Cabrera Garcia and Montiel Flores v Mexico, 2010.) Finally, Article 15 obliges States to exclude evidence obtained by torture in any proceeding against the person making the declaration. Proceeding is a broad concept that refers not only to criminal prosecutions but includes also disciplinary and other administrative processes. There is no question, therefore, that the exclusionary rule applies equally to evidence used, for example, in immigration decisions and in asylum and refugee determinations. In the context of the Global War on Terror, some powerful States took the position that there was no obligation to exclude information obtained under torture if it was not used as evidence in proceedings. For example, in planning intelligence or military operations. Also, that the exclusionary rule applies only to evidence obtained by the State’s own agents, but not to that obtained by intelligence services of other States. Finally, those powerful States also adhered to the notion that all the obligations acquired through ratification of CAT and other human rights treaties were strictly territorial, i.e., that they did not apply to wrongful acts conducted by the States’ agents when operating overseas. Notably, that also left open a wide gate to encourage the practice of torture by their own agents, also in contravention with the object and purpose of the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule in domestic law It is up to the domestic jurisdiction to establish procedures to give effect to the exclusionary rule through legislation and regulation, and for domestic courts to decide if those procedures comply with constitutional as well as conventional standards. In many countries, however, procedural law is not clear as to what the court has to do if an issue arises as to the possibility that a piece of evidence may have been obtained under torture. In such cases, courts may decide that there is a possibility that torture occurred and pass that along the matter to a prosecutor - where it dies because most prosecutors prefer not to investigate further and file charges against suspected perpetrators. In some countries, courts do not follow up on referral to the prosecutor, claiming that the notion of prosecutorial discretion is part of the sphere of autonomy of the prosecutor’s office and off-limits to judicial supervision. And yet torture is an international crime that obliges the State to investigate, prosecute and punish every incident of torture and ill-treatment. For that reason, exercises of prosecutorial discretion must be judicially reviewable under standards of reasonableness, in order to eliminate or sharply reduce the effects of impunity for torture. Again on the implementation of the exclusionary rule, courts in many countries receive claims of torture of defendants and perhaps make some effort at corroboration, say by ordering a medical examination to be performed according to Istanbul Protocol standards. But then courts defer the decision on the exclusionary rule to the trial of the defendant. This of course could take several years 29