Miranda would be subject to exclusion if it follows on the heels of a confession deemed to be involuntary under the due process analysis. In England and Wales, where an initial confession is found to be inadmissible due to “oppression,” a subsequent non-coerced and otherwise legal confession may be suppressed as being fruit of the poisonous tree. The courts look to see whether the “blight persists” and/or the earlier confessions continues to exert a “malign influence” over the succeeding one. Courts will thus exclude the subsequent confession where the initial breach was flagrant or substantial, and depending on whether it was “continuing,” or whether, for instance, the interrogators clearly let the suspect know that the initial confession could not be used, therefore giving her a clear 135 chance to exercise free of will as to whether to talk to the police thereafter.” 87. It is indisputable that, in most instances, torture exerts an influence over the victim which lasts far longer than the initial physical pain. When the victims are still under the effective control of the alleged perpetrators (as they usually are when brought to court by the police), any claimed confirmation of a confession should prime facie be considered invalid. VI. CONCLUSION 88. Evidence which has or may have been obtained by torture or other forms of illtreatment must never be used in any criminal proceedings against the person concerned or any other person, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that such information was obtained. Prohibiting the admission of such evidence contributes to the prevention of torture and other forms of ill-treatment. 89. As a consequence of the absolute and non-derogable nature of the prohibition of torture, States have a duty to prevent torture by adopting appropriate and effective means. One such means includes the non-admissibility of evidence obtained by torture, as provided by Article 15 of the UNCAT and Article 10 of the IACPPT. Like other obligations in the general prohibition against torture, the exclusionary rule is absolute and non-derogable. It has a jus cogens status and imposes obligations erga omnes. 90. Since the adoption of the Declaration against Torture in 1975, the principle of nonadmissibility of evidence obtained by torture has frequently been confirmed by the observations and findings of a number of UN bodies and mechanisms, such as the Committee against Torture, the Human Rights Committee, and the Special Rapporteur on Torture. At a regional level, it has also been included in the IACPPT and supported by the jurisprudence of the Inter-American and European System. The Rules of Procedure and Evidence of international criminal tribunals have also incorporated this rule. Moreover, this principle has been endorsed by the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council. 91. States have a positive duty to ensure that evidence is not obtained by torture, inter alia by ensuring that the burden of proof in torture cases does not rest on the alleged victim. There is ample international authority confirming that, whenever pertinent allegations are raised, the State must bear the burden of proving evidence has not been obtained through torture or other ill-treatment. Confirmations of confessions before a prosecutor or in court should not be given any credence, unless the victim genuinely no longer has anything to fear from the perpetrator(s). 92. For the purpose of determining the application of the exclusionary rule, no distinction should be made between torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading 135 See Thaman, above note 36, at p 49. 20