The prohibition on torture gives rise to the obligation erga omnes – an obligation toward the international community as a whole owing to the fundamental and universal nature of the norm – to take steps to eradicate torture worldwide.19 This includes the obligation of all States to prevent and suppress torture and other forms of ill-treatment in territories under their jurisdiction, but also to refrain from encouraging, assisting or recognizing such abuses. Torture material as evidence International law prohibits in absolute terms the use of evidence obtained through torture in any proceedings. This exclusionary rule, contained in Article 15 of the Convention against Torture, applies to “any proceedings” and has been interpreted to include civil, criminal and administrative court proceedings as well as a broad range of decision-making processes by state officials.20 The UN Committee Against Torture, tasked with monitoring compliance with the Convention against Torture, has interpreted the exclusionary rule as applicable to extradition proceedings.21 The principle rationale behind the exclusionary rule is to remove any incentive to engage in torture by making it impossible to use statements extracted through such abuse.22 It is therefore linked inextricably to the goal of preventing torture. In practice, however, it can be difficult to exclude evidence, at any stage of the process, on the grounds that it was obtained through torture. In some jurisdictions, the burden is explicitly on the defendant (or applicant in civil cases) to show that the material was obtained under torture. In others, the standard of proof is set so high that in practice the evidence can only be excluded if the affected person is able to provide the court with information demonstrating that it was so obtained. When the torture took place in a third country, this can be an arduous task even if a defendant or applicant suffered the torture 19 See for example, International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Judgment of 10 December, 1998, para. 151. 20 Coalition of International Non-Governmental Organizations Against Torture (CINAT), Recommendations for a Torture Resolution, Explanatory Note, February 2005, www.fiacat.org/en/spip.php?article344 (accessed November 25, 2009). CINAT is composed of Amnesty International, Association for the Prevention of Torture, International Commission of Jurists, International Federation of Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture, International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims, World Organization against Torture, and the Redress Trust. 21 UN Committee Against Torture, Decision: P.E. v. France, CAT/C/29/D/193/2001, December 19, 2002, http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/cat/decisions/193-2001.html (accessed September 15, 2009). 22 M. Nowak and E. MacArthur, The United Nations Convention against Torture: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, 2008), Chapter 15, para. 2; J.H. Burgers and H. Danelius, The United Nations Convention against Torture: A Handbook on the Convention against Torture and Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Martinus Nijhoff, 1988), p. 148. “No Questions Asked” 10