investigators to secure a guilty verdict.94 These lawyers do not raise human rights abuses before the court and, instead, collude to cover up torture and other illtreatment.95 The International Commission of Jurists, in a 2016 report, highlighted the phenomenon of pocket lawyers as one of the most serious problems in legal communities, for instance, in Central Asia.96 There are several reasons why lawyers might work with police and prosecutors in this way, including corruption and bribery.97 Whatever the reason, suspects, accused persons or defendants who are appointed “pocket lawyers” as their legal representatives have little chance of excluding torture evidence or of receiving a fair trial. 45. In most European countries, the application of the exclusionary rule in criminal proceedings and the related procedures tend to be elaborated quite comprehensively. Nevertheless, there remain challenges in implementing the exclusionary rule for evidence indirectly obtained through torture (i.e., on the application of the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine),98 and in cases where evidence has been obtained through the torture of a third party.99 It is clear that the exclusionary rule should apply not only where the actual defendant is the victim of the treatment contrary to the prohibition of torture or other ill-treatment, but also where third parties are concerned.100 94 See e.g., comments by the International Commission of Jurists to the draft federal law “on amending certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation in regard to ensuring the right of a lawyer”, (April 2016) ; International Commission of Jurists mission report “The Birth of a New Advokatura in the Kyrgyz Republic”, 2016 ; Submission of the International Commission of Jurists to the UN Committee against Torture in relation to Tajikistan, 28 March 2018, page 30. 95 Questionnaire response Nota Bene (Tajikistan) (2019). 96 International Commission of Jurists, op. cit., note 93. 97 For more on the link between corruption and torture or other ill-treatment more broadly, see the thematic Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, A/HRC/40/59, 16 January 2019: “Corruption within the judiciary has been found to gravely undermine accountability for human rights violations, including torture or illtreatment (e.g. A/HRC/13/39, para. 71; and CCPR/C/TKM/CO/2, para. 31)” and “Corruption has been causally linked to the direct infliction of torture and ill-treatment, to the denial of protection from such abuse, and to the failure to prevent, investigate and prosecute torture or ill-treatment more broadly. More generally, corruption can permeate government policy, the implementation of the law and the administration of justice in a way which undermines every aspect of the fight against torture and ill-treatment”; see also UN Committee against Torture (CAT), CAT/C/52/2, para. 91: “Corruption and torture and other ill-treatment are inextricably linked”. 98 Fruit of the poisonous tree or ‘derivative evidence’ refers to evidence obtained indirectly as a result of an illegal act. In the context of torture and ill-treatment, it usually refers to physical evidence obtained as a result of information obtained from torture. For more information, see Fair Trials and REDRESS, op. cit., note 26, p.23; see also “Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”, op. cit., note 73, para. 29. 99 ‘Third party torture evidence’ refers to evidence obtained by torturing someone other than the defendant in whose trial the evidence is being used, such as torturing a witness or co-defendant for a statement that incriminates the defendant. 100 Such a conclusion is plainly intended by the wording of article 15 of UNCAT, which provides that “any statement […] in any proceedings” shall come within the scope of exclusion, and not just one 33