the burden of proof in establishing through an impartial investigation that evidence was not obtained by torture but, instead, it is left to the alleged victim to prove that torture occurred, sometimes with unrealistically high standards for proof. 37. An OSCE trial monitoring project in a Central Asian state in 2005 and 2006 documented 133 instances where defendants alleged that evidence had been obtained under torture and other ill-treatment. Judges took action regarding the allegations in only 53 of these cases. In those 53 cases, judges summoned and examined the investigators accused as witnesses. All denied having used torture against the defendants. The OSCE’s trial monitoring report noted that, in all of these cases, the judges’ action was merely a formality, since more rigorous measures of verifying the defendants’ allegations were not taken.84 Although there are no clear requirements under international law restricting the types of evidence that may be presented in order to investigate an allegation of torture, calling alleged perpetrators to present evidence on the matter is highly problematic. 38. In some countries, there is a failure to distinguish the exclusionary procedure within the relevant criminal trial from the separate criminal investigation into the allegation of torture. These are two distinct processes, but there is a tendency to overlook differences in their objectives and procedures. All allegations of torture made in the context of criminal proceedings must be investigated, with a view to bringing the perpetrator to justice. The procedure to exclude evidence, however, should be an entirely separate process, as the decision on the exclusion of torture evidence should not depend on the outcome of any criminal investigation into the allegation of torture, nor should it require the same standard of proof. 39. In practice, the burden of proof in courts on the admissibility of material obtained by torture or other ill-treatment often falls on the alleged victim, rather than on the state. The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has held that the applicant should only be required to demonstrate that their allegations are well-founded – in other words, that there are plausible reasons to believe that there is a real risk of torture or ill-treatment, and that the burden of proof should shift to the prosecution and the Courts.85 40. The UN Committee against Torture has also held that it is for the state to investigate with due diligence whether there is a real risk that a confession or other evidence was obtained by unlawful means, including by torture or other ill-treatment that 84 85 30 OSCE/ODIHR, “Results of Trial Monitoring in the Kyrgyz Republic”, 2005–2006, p. 77. Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, op. cit., note 73, para. 32.