9.11.2017 A & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 1123 (11 August 2004) directly against the common lawes of England, and shewed the inconvenience thereof by fearfull example, to whom I refer you, being worthy your reading. So as there is no law to warrant tortures in this and, nor can they be justified by any prescription being so lately brought in." 107. The International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Former Yugoslavia since 1991 expressed themselves strongly in Prosecutor v Furundzija (10 December 1998): "146 . The existence of this corpus of general and treaty rules proscribing torture shows that the international community, aware of the importance of outlawing this heinous phenomenon, has decided to suppress any manifestation of torture by operating both at the interstate level and at the level of individuals. No legal loopholes have been left." At paragraph 150 they stated: "…By contrast, in the case of torture, the mere fact of keeping in force or passing legislation contrary to the international prohibition of torture generates international State responsibility. The value of freedom from torture is so great that it becomes imperative to preclude any national legislative act authorising or condoning torture or at any rate capable of bringing about this effect." 108. P E v France [2001] 10 IHRR 421 was a decision of the Committee against Torture established under Article 17 of UNCAT and empowered to consider complaints against states parties to the Convention. While holding that there had not been a violation of Article 15, it was stated: "6.3 The Committee considers in this regard that the generality of the provisions of article 15 derives from the absolute nature of the prohibition of torture and imply, consequently, an obligation for each State party to ascertain whether or not statements constituting part of the evidence of a procedure for which it is competent have been made as a result of torture. The Committee finds that the statements at issue constitute part of the evidence of the procedure for the extradition of the complainant, and for which the State party is competent. In this regard, in the light of the allegations that the statements at issue, which constituted, at least in part, the basis for the additional extradition request were obtained as a result of torture, the State party had the obligation to ascertain the veracity of such allegations." 109. As to the burden of proof, the Committee also stated (paragraph 6.6) "The Committee, bearing in mind that it is for the author to demonstrate that her allegations are well founded, considers that, on the basis of the facts before it, it cannot conclude that it has been established that the statements at issue were obtained as a result of torture." 110. Mr Burnett draws attention to the fact that the UNCAT Committee has not challenged the focus on criminal proceedings found in the reports of the United Kingdom Government to the Committee. Documents supplied to the Court show a similar focus in the reports of other states. 111. Reference is made to the statutes and rules of international tribunals dealing with admissibility in criminal trials. Article 69(7) of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, for example, provides: "Evidence obtained by means of a violation of this Statute or internationally recognised human rights shall not be admissible if: (a) the violation casts substantial doubt on the reliability of the evidence; or (b) the admission of the evidence would be antithetical to and would seriously damage the integrity of the proceedings" http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/1123.html 24/113