23. In its General Comment No. 20, the Human Rights Committee notes that “it is not sufficient for the implementation of article 7 to prohibit such treatment or punishment or to make it a crime. States parties should inform the Committee of the legislative, administrative, judicial and other measures they take to prevent and punish acts of torture and cruel, inhuman an degrading treatment in any territory under their jurisdiction.”35 IV. THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE EXTRACTED BY TORTURE A. HISTORY/LEGAL FRAMEWORK 24. The history of the exclusionary rule reveals that this principle is inherent to the prohibition of torture and other forms of ill-treatment. Although it is a long-standing principle in many domestic legal systems,36 this rule was enshrined for the first time in an international instrument in 1975. Article 12 of the General Assembly Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Declaration against Torture) provides: “Any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment may not be invoked as evidence against the person concerned or against any other person in any proceedings.”37 The Declaration against Torture was adopted by consensus, which demonstrates the universal acceptance provided to the exclusionary rule from the outset. 25. In 1982, the Human Rights Committee adopted General Comment No. 7 on Article 7 of the ICCPR, including a relevant section on safeguards: “1. … The Committee notes that it is not sufficient for the implementation of this article to prohibit such treatment or punishment or to make it a crime. … Because such cases nevertheless occur, it follows from article 7, read together with article 2 of the Covenant, that States must ensure effective protection through some machinery of control. …. Among the safeguards which make control effective are … provisions making confessions or other evidence obtained through torture or other treatment contrary to article 7 inadmissible in Court. ” 2. As appears from the terms of this article, the scope of protection required goes far beyond torture as normally understood.”38 26. The exclusionary rule was first enshrined in treaty law in Article 15 of the UN Convention against Torture, which entered into force 26 June 1987.39 Currently, there 35 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 20 concerning the prohibition of torture and cruel treatment or punishment, UN Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.7, at § 8 (10 March 1992). 36 See e.g. A & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 71 at §52; or US Supreme Court cases on the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine, e.g.: Nix v Williams, 467 US 431 (1984); or Mthembu v The State, [2008] ZASCA 51 (South African Supreme Court); or Tofilau/Marks/Hill/Clarke v the Queen [2007] HCA 39 (Australian High Court). Cf Thaman, Truth or Due Process: The Use of Illegally Gathered Evidence in the Criminal Trial, Background paper for the 18th Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law, at p 3. Thaman suggests that ‘[i]n Britain, the courts did not worry about the methods used to acquire evidence if it was otherwise relevant and material.’ Paper available at: http://www.wcl.american.edu/events/2010congress/reports/General_Reports/V_B_The_Exclusionary_Rule.pdf 37 Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 3452 of 9 December 1975, available at: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/30/ares30.htm. 38 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No.7, at §§ 1-2 (1982). 6