• all interrogation sessions should be recorded and the detainee or, when provided by law, his or her counsel should have access to these records; • the authorities should regularly review procedures governing the questioning of persons who are under the influence of drugs, alcohol, medicine or who are in a state of shock; and • the position of particularly vulnerable persons (for example, the young, those who are mentally disabled or mentally ill) should be the subject of special safeguards.365 Recording of interrogations One of the best safeguards against abuse during interrogation is to ensure that all interrogations are recorded both in video and audio form on pain of exclusion from evidence. This is the approach favoured by the United Nations. Recording interrogations had a dramatic effect in reducing the number of allegations of abuse emanating from detention centres in Northern Ireland after its introduction there. OSCE experts have also recognized the value of electronic recording of interrogations both to reduce the risk of ill-treatment and to protect authorities against false allegations of mistreatment.366 Consistent with this approach the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has stated that “[a]ll interrogation sessions should be recorded and preferably video recorded, and the identity of all persons present should be included in the records. Evidence from non-recorded interrogations should be excluded from court proceedings.”367 Reliance on evidence obtained through torture Evidence obtained through torture, inhuman or degrading treatment will be inadmissible and cannot be adduced at a trial or relied upon in any way to form the case for the prosecution (Article 15 CAT). Evidence obtained through torture or other ill-treatment is notoriously unreliable. The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights succinctly explained the absolute prohibition on the reliance of evidence obtained through torture: Torture is torture whoever does it, judicial proceedings are judicial proceedings, whatever their purpose − the former can never be admissible in the latter. 368 The prohibition on the use of evidence obtained through torture is clear-cut. In Jalloh, a case concerning the use of evidence obtained in a manner amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment, the European Court has held that such evidence should not have been admissible, and to do so was a violation of the right to a fair trial. In the same case, the Court made the following general observations in relation to torture, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment, and the right to a fair trial:369 • incriminating evidence − whether in the form of a confession or other evidence − obtained as a result of acts of violence or brutality or other forms of treatment that can be character365 OSCE/ODIHR, Preventing Torture - A Handbook for OSCE Field Staff (Warsaw, 1999), pp. 55-56, available at http:// www.osce.org/documents/odihr/1999/08/754_en.html. 366 Ibid, p. 56. 367 Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Question of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Theo van Boven, doc. E/CN.4/2003/68, 17 December 2002, para. 26(g). 368 CoE Commissioner for Human Rights, Alvaro Gil-Robles, Report on the visit to UK of 4-12 November 2004, doc. CommDH(2005)6, Strasbourg, 8 June 2005, para. 27. 369 ECtHR, Jalloh v. Germany, Application no. 54810/00, 11 July 2006, paras. 103-123. 130 Countering Terrorism, Protecting Human Rights