soles of his feet, the pulling out of toe nails and teeth, sleep deprivation, and deafening noises. Under torture, he confessed alleged plans to attack US interests in France. Once extradited to France, in October 2001, Beghal denied many of the statements he had made in the UAE and told the investigating judge about the conditions and treatment during detention in the UAE. The forensic examination ordered by the judge immediately after the interrogation revealed some traces of the kind of treatment Beghal reported, and the doctor noted a “post-traumatic effect of the alleged events.”148 The French court nevertheless allowed all of Beghal’s statements made in the UAE as evidence at trial. The court’s logic in doing so reveals the prevailing view that statements made under coercion have value insofar as corroborated by other elements, including statements made to the French investigating judge: “Even if Djamel Beghal would progressively retract, and then definitively do so at the court hearing, the statements he made in the United Arab Emirates, it must be acknowledged that the essence of these, manifestly confirmed during his first hearing with the investigating judge [in France], would be in any event confirmed by numerous investigations.”149 The Paris Appeals Court would later exclude the testimony from the UAE because it was obtained “under conditions not compatible with the respect for the rights of the defense,” but confirm Beghal’s conviction nonetheless.150 Use of torture evidence at trial against third persons As the case of Beghal and other cases demonstrate, individuals subjected to abuse in a third country and then prosecuted in France have the opportunity to contest the use of evidence emanating from that abuse, sometimes successfully. It is, however, very difficult for defendants in French courts to challenge information and statements by third parties obtained overseas and invoked against them, even where there are well-founded reasons to suspect they were obtained in abusive conditions. Indeed, courts have allowed as evidence in some cases statements allegedly made under torture by third persons, without taking steps to evaluate the circumstances in which they were obtained. Part of the evidence in the 2006 trial of the so-called Chechen Network—27 people accused of undergoing paramilitary training in camps in Georgia with a view to committing terrorist 148 Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, 10ème Chambre, Jugement du 15 mars 2005, No. D’affaire : 0125339022, Ministère Public c/Daoudi, Beghal, Bounour et autres (Beghal judgment), p. 142. 149 Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, 10ème Chambre, Jugement du mars 15, 2005, No. D’affaire : 0125339022, p. 29. 150 Cour d’Appel de Paris, 10ème chambre, section A, Arrêt du 14 décembre 2005, Dossier No. 05/02518, p. 17. “No Questions Asked” 52