(g) The State party’s affirmation that “evidence obtained as a result of any acts of torture by British officials, or with which British authorities were complicit, would not be admissible in criminal or civil proceedings in the United Kingdom”, and that the Home Secretary does not intend to rely upon or present “evidence where there is a knowledge or belief that torture has taken place”; (h) With respect to the British Virgin Islands, the establishment of the Human Rights Reporting Coordinating Committee; with respect to Guernsey, the enactment of the Human Rights (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 2000; with respect to Isle of Man, the enactment of the Human Rights Act 2001; and with respect to Bermuda, the complaint mechanism introduced by the Police Complaints Act 1998; and (i) The State party’s reaffirmation of its unreserved condemnation of the use of torture; the early ratification by the State party of the Optional Protocol to the Convention; and its active pursuit through diplomatic activity, practical projects and research funding in support of universal ratification of the Convention and its Optional Protocol. C. Subjects of concern 39. The Committee expresses its concern at: (a) Remaining inconsistencies between the requirements of the Convention and the provisions of the State party’s domestic law which, even after the passage of the Human Rights Act, have left continuing gaps; notably: (i) Article 15 of the Convention prohibits the use of evidence gained by torture wherever and by whomever obtained; notwithstanding the State party’s assurance set out in paragraph 38, subparagraph (g), supra, the State party’s law has been interpreted to exclude the use of evidence extracted by torture only where the State party’s officials were complicit; and (ii) Article 2 of the Convention provides that no exceptional circumstances whatsoever may be invoked as a justification for torture; the text of section 134 (4) of the Criminal Justice Act however provides for a defence of “lawful authority, justification or excuse” to a charge of official intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, a defence which is not restricted by the Human Rights Act for conduct outside the State party, where the Human Rights Act does not apply; moreover, the text of section 134 (5) of the Criminal Justice Act provides for a defence for conduct that is permitted under foreign law, even if unlawful under the State party’s law; (b) The State party’s limited acceptance of the applicability of the Convention to the actions of its forces abroad, in particular its explanation that “those parts of the Convention which are applicable only in respect of territory under the jurisdiction of a State party cannot be applicable in relation to actions of the United Kingdom in Afghanistan and Iraq”; the Committee 17