30. In 1992, the Special Rapporteur on Torture referred to the admissibility of evidence obtained under torture as one of the elements which contributes to impunity and makes torture feasible. He indicated: “If each and every State took such measures and vigorously supervised their implementation by the various branches of State authority, no torturer could do his dirty work in the expectation that he could evade punishment. For it is impunity which makes torture attractive and feasible. Far too often the Special Rapporteur receives information… that courts admitted and accepted statements and confessions in spite of the fact that during trial the suspect claimed that these had been obtained under torture, …that, consequently, those who are responsible for the prohibited acts go unpunished and those who are the victims of these acts are 46 left without an effective remedy and without appropriate redress.” 31. The Special Rapporteur on Torture has also referred to the exclusionary rule in subsequent reports.47 Likewise, other UN mandate holders such as the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism has also referred to this important principle.48 32. In 2007, the Human Rights Committee adopted its General Comment No. 32 on Article 14 of the ICCPR on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, and observed further: “A fortiori, it is unacceptable to treat an accused person in a manner contrary to article 7 of the Covenant in order to extract a confession. Domestic law must ensure that statements or confessions obtained in violation of article 7 of the Covenant are excluded from the evidence, except if such material is used as evidence that torture or other treatment prohibited by this provision occurred (…).”49 33. Moreover, in their annual resolutions on torture, the UN General Assembly and the Human Rights Council have also adverted to the exclusionary rule. For example, in 2009 and 2010, respectively, the following wording was adopted by consensus: “The General Assembly… 13. Strongly urges States to ensure that no statement that is established to have been made as a result of torture is invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made….”50 “The Human Rights Council, 7. Strongly urges States to ensure that no statement that is established to have been made as a result of torture is invoked as evidence in any proceedings, 46 Above note 5 at § 589 (emphasis added). See e.g. Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, UN doc. A/54/426 at §12 (1 October 1999). 48 Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism, UN doc. A/63/223, at § 31-33 (6 August 2003) and Joint Study on Global Practices in Relation to Secret Detention in the Context of Countering Terrorism of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism, the Special Rapporteur torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Working Group on Enforced Disappearences, UN doc. A/HRC/13/42, at § 292 f (19 February 2010). 49 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32, UN doc. CCPR/C/GC/32, at § 41(2007). 50 General Assembly Resolution, UN doc. A/RES/64/153, at § 13 (Adopted on 18 December 2009). 47 8