UN TREATY BODIES 1 ture,” regardless of whether the alleged torture occurred under the jurisdiction of that State.94 Furthermore, the State should ensure that in any proceeding individuals can challenge the legality of any evidence plausibly suspected of having been obtained by torture.95 – ICCPR Article 14(3)(g) of the ICCPR provides that everyone has the right “Not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt.” The HRC also recognises that “It is important for the discouragement of violations under article 7 that the law must prohibit the use of admissibility in judicial proceedings of statements or confessions obtained through torture or other prohibited treatment.”96 Thus, no direct or indirect physical or psychological coercion may be used.97 Where an allegation is made that evidence was obtained through duress, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that this was not the case.98 While the prohibition under the UNCAT extends to all evidence, it is in the nature of the individual complaints procedure under the ICCPR that the HRC may find a violation of Article 7 only as regards ill-treatment of the author or subject of the complaint. However, the Committee may find a violation of the right to a fair trial under Article 14(1) of the ICCPR where persons testifying against the author were subjected to torture.99 1.2.5 Duty to train personnel and provide procedural safeguards Torture generally occurs when a person is deprived of liberty, whether in a judicial or an administrative context. The CAT and the HRC have each interpreted their respective treaty as incorporating a duty on the part of State Parties to introduce, and monitor compliance with, procedural safeguards, and to train staff that may have contact with detainees. P.E. v France (2002), op. cit., §6.3. See also G.K. v Switzerland, CAT Communication No. 219/2002, 7 May 2003, §6.10. 95 CAT, Concluding Observations on the UK, UN Doc. CAT/C/CR/33/3, 2004, §5(d). 96 HRC, General Comment No. 20, 1992, §12. 97 See Berry v Jamaica, HRC Communication No. 330/1998, 7 April 1994, §11.7; Sahadeo v Guyana, HRC Communication No. 728/1996, 1 November 2001, §9.3; Deolall v Guyana, HRC Communication No. 912/2000, 1 November 2004, §5.1; 98 Singarasa v Sri Lanka, HRC Communication No. 1033/2001, 21 July 2004, §7.4; Sultanova and Ruzmetov v Uzbekistan, HRC Communication No. 915/2000, 30 March 2006, §7.3. 99 Bazarov v Uzbekistan, HRC Communication No. 959/2000, 14 July 2006, §8.3. 94 24