the suspect and whether the crime was committed within the State’s jurisdiction.484 3.2.4 Duty to exclude evidence obtained by torture or other ill-treatment Article 10 of the IACPPT provides: 3 The Inter-american Regional System While the requirement to extradite suspects is explicitly stated in the IACPPT, the Court has based its decisions in cases involving extradition directly on the ACHR. In Goiburú and Others v Paraguay, which involved the illegal and arbitrary detention, torture and forced disappearance of four persons between 1974 and 1977, the Court found that “according to the general obligation of guarantee established in Article 1(1) of the American Convention, Paraguay should adopt the necessary measures, of a diplomatic and judicial nature, to prosecute and punish all those responsible for the violations committed, which includes furthering the corresponding extradition requests by all possible means.”485 Furthermore, the Court considers that seeking extradition of suspects for the crime of torture is an obligation under customary international law, and that “the mechanisms of collective guarantee established in the [ACHR], together with the regional and universal international obligations on this issue, bind the States of the region to collaborate in good faith in this respect, either by conceding extradition or prosecuting those responsible for the facts… on their territory.”486 “No statement that is verified as having been obtained through torture shall be admissible as evidence in a legal proceeding, except in a legal action taken against a person or persons accused of having elicited it through acts of torture, and only as evidence that the accused obtained such statement by such means.” This provision complements Articles 8 of the ACHR, which provides in part that every person has “2.(g.) the right not to be compelled to be a witness against himself or to plead guilty... 3. A confession of guilt by the accused shall be valid only if it is made without coercion of any kind.” Rodley, op. cit., pp.52–53. Goiburú and Others v Paraguay (2006), op. cit., §130. It should be noted that the IACPPT had not yet been adopted at the time of the facts, which may explain the Court’s failure to make explicit reference to the provisions of that instrument regarding extradition. 486 Ibid. §§131–132. See also La Cantuta v Peru (2006), op. cit., §160. 484 485 107