18 GÄFGEN v. GERMANY JUDGMENT 2. The admission of evidence procured as a result of torture or other prohibited ill-treatment: the exclusionary rule (a) The States Parties to the Convention 69. Materials before the Court show that there is no clear consensus in the States Parties to the Convention on the scope of the exclusionary rule. (b) Other human rights monitoring bodies 70. The United Nations Human Rights Committee stated in its General Comment No. 7 on torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Article 7 of the ICCPR) of 30 May 1982: “1. ... it follows from Article 7, read together with Article 2 of the Covenant, that States must ensure an effective protection through some machinery of control. Complaints about ill-treatment must be investigated effectively by competent authorities. Those found guilty must be held responsible, and the alleged victims must themselves have effective remedies at their disposal, including the right to obtain compensation. Among the safeguards which may make control effective are ... provisions making confessions or other evidence obtained through torture or other treatment contrary to Article 7 inadmissible in court; ...” 71. General Comment No. 7 was replaced by General Comment No. 20 concerning prohibition of torture and cruel treatment or punishment of 10 March 1992. In the latter, it is stated: “12. It is important for the discouragement of violations under Article 7 that the law must prohibit the use of admissibility in judicial proceedings of statements or confessions obtained through torture or other prohibited treatment.” 72. The United Nations Committee against Torture, which monitors the implementation of the United Nations Convention against Torture, stated in its Concluding Observations on Germany of 11 May 1998 (UN Doc. A/53/44) as follows: “The Committee recommends that further legislative attention be paid to the strict enforcement of Article 15 of the Convention and that all evidence obtained directly or indirectly by torture be strictly prevented from reaching the cognisance of the deciding judges in all judicial proceedings.” (paragraph 193) (c) Case-law of the courts of other States 73. The prohibition on using, in any manner prejudicial to the accused, information derived from facts learned as a result of the unlawful acts of State agents (the so-called doctrine of the “fruit of the poisonous tree”) is firmly rooted in the legal tradition of the United States of America (see, for instance, US Supreme Court, no. 82-1651, Nix v. Williams, decision of 11 June 1984, 467 US 431 (1984), pp. 441 et seq.; US Supreme Court, no. 82-5298, Segura v. United States, decision of 5 July 1984, 468 US 796 (1984), pp. 796-97 and 815; and US Supreme Court, no. 07-513, Herring v.