the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.10 The Convention against Torture clarifies the absolute nature of the prohibition: No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency may be invoked as a justification for torture.11 The prohibition against torture and ill-treatment has risen to the level of jus cogens, that is, a peremptory norm of international law. As such it is considered part of the body of customary international law that binds all states, whether or not they have ratified the treaties in which the prohibition against torture is enshrined. The jus cogens character of the prohibition applies to torture committed on a widespread and systematic basis—a crime against humanity—and to torture committed against a single victim. Peremptory norms, such as the prohibition against torture, apply in peacetime as well as during war, conflict or state of emergency, and are, in the words of the International Court of Justice, “intransgressible.”12 Article 15 of the Convention against Torture imposes on all states the obligation to ensure that “any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.” The drafters of the Convention made it clear that the exclusionary rule, as the ban on torture evidence is called, was designed as a disincentive to torture by eliminating the possibility of using its fruits in decision-making processes.13 It is therefore inextricably linked to the goal of preventing and eradicating torture. 10 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture), adopted December 10, 1984, G.A. res. 39/46, annex, 39 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 51) at 197, U.N. Doc. A/39/51 (1984), entered into force June 26, 1987, article 1. 11 Ibid., article 2(2). 12 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 9 July 2004, http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf (accessed July 14, 2009), para. 157. 13 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” 8