15 It is important to emphasise that the definition requires the act to be performed for the purpose of obtaining ‘information or a confession’. This is the mischief at which the CAT is aimed. [31] The CAT prohibits torture in absolute terms and no derogation from it is permissible, even in the event of a public emergency. It is thus a peremptory norm of international law. Our Constitution follows suit and extends the non-derogation principle to include cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.19 The European Convention on Human Rights does likewise.20 The prohibition against torture is therefore one of our most fundamental constitutional values. Having regard to this country’s inauspicious pre-constitutional history, when the treatment of criminal suspects and other detainees often involved the use of torture, this is hardly surprising – for it is one of the most egregious of human rights violations. And it is a crime that the CAT requires all member states to investigate thoroughly and to ensure that perpetrators are severely punished.21 [32] In regard to the admissibility of evidence obtained as result of torture, Article 15 of the CAT cannot be clearer. It requires that: ‘Each State shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.’ 19 Section 37(5)(c). Article 3 and Article 15. 21 Article 4 of the CAT provides: ‘1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to any act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture. 2. Each Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.’ 20