EL HASKI v. BELGIUM JUDGMENT 35 Imprisonment, adopted by the United Nations in 1975, and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment”. It pointed out that at the Témara centre, where most prisoners were taken after their arrest, ill-treatment, violence and torture were common practice. The cells, situated in the basement, were lit day and night and when they moved around, as well as during interrogation, which often lasted a very long time, the suspects were blindfolded. It added that insults and blows were commonplace, with prisoners under interrogation sometimes being stripped naked, and that several cases of electrical torture and rape had been reported. A number of prisoners had signed statements under torture. The FIDH also reproduced various detailed testimonies describing the poor conditions of detention and mentioning, in particular, beatings, blows, rape, cigarette burns, insults, humiliations, spitting, threats, blackmail, placement in solitary confinement, endless questioning, sleep deprivation and denial of medical care (see paragraph 55 above). Amnesty International gave a similar description of treatment inflicted on detainees at the Témara centre. It indicated that many former prisoners had complained of being tortured or ill-treated during interrogation sessions, in an attempt to extract confessions or information from them or to force them to sign or thumb-print statements which they rejected or denied. It added that in many cases the statements had been signed or thumb-printed after the detainees had been transferred from Témara to a police station, where they were threatened with being returned to Témara and with further torture should they refuse to comply (see paragraph 55 above). 99. In the Court’s view, the foregoing information, which emanates from diverse, objective and concurring sources, establishes that there was, at the material time, a “real risk” that the impugned statements had been obtained in Morocco using treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention. Article 6 of the Convention thus required the domestic courts not to admit them in evidence, unless they had first verified, in view of elements specific to the case, that they had not been obtained in such manner. As indicated above, in dismissing the applicant’s request for the exclusion of those statements, the Brussels Court of Appeal merely found that he had not adduced any “concrete evidence” that would be capable of raising “reasonable doubt” in this connection. This is sufficient for the Court to find that there has been a violation of Article 6 in the present case, without it being necessary to ascertain whether, as the applicant contends, that provision has also been breached for other reasons.