24 EL HASKI v. BELGIUM JUDGMENT criticised by both governmental and non-governmental organisations for torture and ill-treatment inflicted systematically on persons charged with acts of terrorism after the Casablanca bombings in May 2003. The individuals who had given the statements incriminating the applicant had precisely been prosecuted in that context and during that period. He then pointed out that, before the Belgian courts, he had relied on the following evidence to show the existence of torture: - Reports condemning a systematic practice of ill-treatment of suspects in the months following the Casablanca bombings, in particular the Human Rights Watch report of 2005 (entitled “Morocco’s Truth Commission: Honoring Past Victims during an Uncertain Present”), which noted that, according to various human rights organisations, over 2,000 suspected Islamists had been detained, many in secret detention, for days or even weeks, and had been subjected by the police to various forms of illtreatment, and in some cases torture, in order to extract confessions. - The fact that the individuals in question had complained of acts of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment – in particular a certain N., who had apparently been arrested in Mauritania and had been held in secret detention for several months – and that the Moroccan authorities had not carried out any investigation in response to those allegations. - The fact that they had been held in police custody for twelve days, under the Terrorism Act of 28 May 2003, applied retroactively. - The fact that the Moroccan proceedings had taken place in a hurried manner, without the use of conventional methods of investigation. ... 73. In the applicant’s submission, in view of the likelihood of his allegations relating to the statements taken in Morocco and France, Article 6 of the Convention obliged the Belgian courts either to carry out investigations into those allegations – the principle of the prohibition of torture triggering an obligation to investigate – or to exclude the evidence in question. B. Observations of third-party interveners 1. The United Kingdom Government 74. Referring to the Court’s case-law, the United Kingdom Government invited the Court to confirm the existence, for the purposes of Article 6 of the Convention, of an “exclusionary rule” on statements that had been obtained directly by torture, with the result that a violation of this Article should be found where the rule applied, irrespective of the overall fairness of the proceedings. However, referring in particular to the decision in Sharkunov and Mezentsev v. Russia (no. 75330/01, 2 July 2009), they further asked the