14 [28] I turn to how the evidence of torture should be approached in the light of the Constitution. On this matter the Constitution speaks unequivocally. Section 12 states that: ‘(1) Everyone has the right to freedom and security of the person, which includes the right – (a) ... (b) ... (c) to be free from all forms of violence from either public or private sources; (d) not to be tortured in any way; (e) not to be treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way.’ [29] There can be no doubt that the police violated all these rights in the manner that they treated Ramseroop, and probably other witnesses, after his arrest. On the face of it, the evidence obtained as a result of these violations ought to be excluded because of its ‘stain’ on the administration of justice.17 For present purposes it is necessary to deal only with the electric shock treatment that Ramseroop was subjected to. [30] The Convention Against Torture (CAT), which South Africa ratified on 10 December 1998, defines torture18 to include: ‘. . . [A]ny act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession . . . when such pain and suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or any other person acting in an official capacity . . ..’ 17 S v Tandwa above para 120; S v Pillay 2004 (2) SACR 419 (SCA) paras 9 and 11 of the judgment of Scott JA. 18 Article 1.