consequence of a violation of that Article. Otherwise, the trial as a whole is rendered unfair.25 The Grand Chamber concluded that the fairness of a trial and the effective protection of the absolute prohibition on torture and ill-treatment are compromised when the tainted evidence has an impact on the conviction or sentencing of a defendant. Torture material as intelligence The Convention against Torture, while explicit in its prohibition on the use of torture evidence in any proceedings, is silent on the use of torture evidence as the basis for decisions by the executive branch and its agencies. This lacuna in international law has created space for arguments by governments that intelligence services and law enforcement authorities may use foreign torture information for operational purposes—for example, to conduct a search of someone’s house or make arrests—without violating the exclusionary rule. Human Rights Watch believes this narrow reading of Article 15 misrepresents the letter and spirit of the Convention against Torture. It also leads inevitably to a conflict with obligations erga omnes with respect to the eradication of torture. Article 15 of the Convention against Torture prohibits the use of evidence obtained through torture in “any proceedings.” This broad formulation suggests that the Convention drafters intended to cover a broad range of decision-making processes, including, in our view, judicially-authorized preliminary investigations and investigative steps.26 Beyond the specific language of the Convention, obligations erga omnes arising from the absolute prohibition of torture requires authorities to refrain from actions that recognize or encourage torture. The regular or repeated receipt and use of foreign torture information as the basis for any kind of operational decisions by the executive branch implicitly validates the use of unlawful methods to acquire information. Furthermore, the practice of using such information, and any public statements affirming the legitimacy of doing so, may create a demand for torture intelligence.27 25 European Court of Human Rights [GC], Gäfgen v. Germany, no. 22978/05, 1 June 2010, available at www.echr.coe.int, para. 178. 26 M. Nowak and E. MacArthur, The United Nations Convention against Torture: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, 2008), p. 503. 27 International Commission of Jurists, Assessing Damage, Urging Action: Report of the Eminent Jurists Panel on Terrorism, Counter-terrorism and Human Rights, Geneva, 2009, p. 85. “No Questions Asked” 12