17 [34] Ramseroop made his statement to the police immediately after the metal box was discovered at his home following his torture. That his subsequent testimony was given apparently voluntarily does not detract from the fact that the information contained in that statement pertaining to the Hilux and metal box was extracted through torture. It would have been apparent to him when he testified that, having been warned in terms of s 204 of the Act, any departure from his statement would have had serious consequences for him. It is also apparent from his testimony that, even four years after his torture, its fearsome and traumatic effects were still with him. In my view, therefore, there is an inextricable link between his torture and the nature of the evidence that was tendered in court. The torture has stained the evidence irredeemably. [35] It is important to point out this. Although the information regarding the Corolla was probably also contained in Ramseroop’s statement, this evidence was discovered independently – before any constitutional violation.27 It was as Ramseroop testified, and Govender confirmed, volunteered by the former. This evidence was therefore not obtained improperly. And in argument before us there was no suggestion that it was. This is so even though the statement containing the information about the Corolla, in addition to information on the other counts, was induced by torture. The Corolla evidence thus remained untainted. [36] To admit Ramseroop’s testimony regarding the Hilux and metal box would require us to shut our eyes to the manner in which the police obtained this information from him. More seriously, it is tantamount to involving the judicial process in ‘moral defilement’. This ‘would compromise the integrity of the judicial process (and) dishonour the 27 Ramseroop’s statement is not part of the record.