of the Supreme Judicial Council, an independent body that seeks to guarantee independence of the judiciary and judges, evidence of interference by political actors remained.93 In countries that face serious challenges to judicial independence, judges may be incentivized to ignore allegations that evidence has been obtained by torture. These issues may be exacerbated in civil law jurisdictions, where the standard of proof tends to be communicated as the judge’s “innermost conviction”, allowing them greater discretion in determining whether to exclude evidence. 43. Prosecutors can play a crucial role in removing this incentive for torture by, for example, proactively inquiring how evidence was obtained, initiating investigations where they suspect evidence may have been obtained by torture, and excluding evidence from the case file before it even reaches court. Just as with judges, there are a variety of reasons why prosecutors fail to uphold the prohibition on the use of torture-tainted evidence. These might include how prosecutors view their role in the criminal justice system (e.g., whether their role is to secure convictions or to search for the truth), or external pressures to secure convictions, which may include disciplinary measures for acquittals (explored further below, in the section on performance quotas). 44. In addition to judges and prosecutors, who have the power to exclude torturetainted evidence and initiate investigations, defence lawyers can also play a crucial role in the exclusion of such evidence and in ensuring the safety and wellbeing of victims of these practices. Often, a lawyer will be the first person from the outside world with whom a detainee in custody will come into contact, and they will be the first point of contact in making a complaint of torture. Once a suspect or accused person makes an allegation of torture, the defence lawyer may undertake a range of actions, including: requesting the detainee’s provisional release; requesting a medical examination; requesting access to evidence of torture (such a CCTV footage) and taking steps to ensure that any such relevant evidence is preserved; filing a motion to dismiss evidence obtained by torture at trial; and filing a separate criminal complaint of torture against the perpetrator. There are a myriad of different reasons why, in practice, lawyers cannot always provide these forms of assistance, even when they are acting in good faith. At times, defence lawyers are not fully independent or sufficiently qualified, which can have a devastating impact on the ability of a suspect or defendant to make an allegation of torture and to exclude evidence during legal proceedings. Several OSCE participating States surveyed for this report face concerns over the use of “pocket lawyers”, who collude with 93 32 “Armenia: PACE monitors express concern at Prime Minister’s call to block courts”, Call of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), 21 May 2019.