Practical recommendations States should take steps to ensure that the legal framework prohibiting the use of evidence obtained by torture is operating properly in practice. In particular, it is recommended that States: 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.  evelop guidance on the operation of the exclusionary rule in practice D and clarify the procedural rules on admissibility, including the burden of proof applied by courts. This should ensure that the burden of proof is shifted to the state when the appellant advances a plausible reason as to why evidence may have been procured by torture or other ill-treatment, and that the court enquires as to whether there is a real risk that the evidence has been obtained by torture or other ill-treatment and, if there is such a risk, that the evidence is not admitted; Improve the quality of medical and forensic reports and enhance the admissibility of independent and impartial medical evidence in any court proceedings, in order to investigate allegations of torture or other illtreatment effectively; Ensure that courts should never admit extrajudicial confessions that are not corroborated by other evidence or that have been recanted; Enforce existing international and regional standards on the independence of judges, prosecutors and lawyers; Collect data on how often it is alleged that evidence has been obtained by torture or other ill-treatment, and how often evidence is excluded at trial on the basis that it was obtained by such practices; and Work with CSOs and other relevant actors to conduct training for judges, prosecutors and defence lawyers on the operation of the exclusionary rule. 37