01213197 E350/S.1 21. This interpretation of the exception contained in Article 15 is in accordance with the purposes of Article 15 and the Convention which it aims to implement. Only the most important will be discussed subsequently. These were: (1) a public policy of disincentivising torture; (2) preventing the use of unreliable evidence as it is not conducive to ascertaining the truth; (3) preserving the integrity of the proceedings; and (4) protecting the Accused's right to a fair trial, including due process?2 There is no hierarchy between these purposes. 22. First, Article 15 is meant to discourage the use of torture by state authorities for the purpose of obtaining information. I am aware that this argument might be considered weakened in certain cases where the alleged torturer would appear to benefit from a narrow interpretation of the rule. And this possible benefit appears to be a major concern of the Majority opinion. As the drafting history shows, the drafters of the CAT were equally concerned about this possibility. They nevertheless chose the language of Article 15 with the "exception" as the only concession to ease prosecution in cases against the alleged torturer. General deterrence is best achieved where the message is unambiguous and jurisprudence as consistent as possible.23 23. Second, the exclusionary rule is meant to protect the right to a fair trial by, inter alia, preventing the invocation of unreliable evidence. More precisely, it is a mechanism to prevent the use of statements made by an accused or by others under torture as evidence of the truthfulness of admissions or other matters asserted in the statement, because in such 24 circumstances this evidence is intrinsically unreliable. The interpretation of the exception chosen by the dissenter provides maximum protection against unreliable evidence in this regard. Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, UN Doc. AlHRC/25/60, 10 April 2014, para. 21; Herman Burgers and Hans Danelius, The United Nations Convention against Torture - A Handbook on the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1988), p. 148 ("The rule laid down in article 15 would seem to be based on two different considerations. First of all, it is clear that a statement made under torture is often an unreliable statement; and it could therefore be contrary to the principle of "fair trial" to invoke such a statement as evidence before a court. [ ... ]"). 23 See para. 11. 24 T. 28 May 2009, pp. 7-9; E74, p. 3; EI85, para. 21; See also, Herman Burgers and Hans DaneIius, The United Nations Convention against Torture - A Handbook on the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1988), p. 148 (when such evidence is invoked against an accused, "the intention is not to prove that the statement is a true statement. The purpose is rather to prove that a specific statement was made under torture [ ... ]"); United Nations General Assembly, Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment 14 August 2006, U.N. Doc. A/611259, para. 45; See also, Rome Statute, Article 69(7) which prohibits the admission of evidence obtained by means of a violation of the Rome Statute or internationally recognized human rights 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." 22 Reasons for Partially Dissenting Opinion of Judge Fenz - Public - II March 2016 6