corroborating evidence which could have been found without the police coercion).84 Nevertheless, the case sets a strong precedent for the exclusion of coerced confessions in criminal trials, even when there is a compelling public interest in the conviction of the person concerned. 53. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has been called on several times to rule on cases in which confessions obtained by torture have been used to convict either the victims or third parties. One example is the case of Cruz and Sanchez v Mexico, in which the Commission ruled that being tortured and forced to sign blank sheets of paper (later to be used as confessions) constituted a prima facie breach of Article 10 of the IACPPT.85 54. In the case of Manriquez v Mexico,86 the Inter-American Commission concluded that Mexico had breached not only Article 10 if the IACPPT, but also the right to the presumption of innocence under Article 8(2) of the American Convention.87 The InterAmerican Commission provided: “Historical experience has clearly shown that giving evidentiary effect to extrajudicial statements, or statements made during the investigative stage of proceedings, is an incentive to use torture when the police prefer to save on investigative effort, extracting a confession from the accused.”88 55. The Inter-American Commission also found breaches of the above articles in the cases of Lovato v El Salvador89 and Del Campo Dodd v Mexico.90 In the latter case, following its reasoning in Manriquez, the Commission concluded that Mr Del Campo Dodd was forced to testify against himself in a torture-induced confession, which it called “the most egregious form of coercion.” 91 56. In Cantoral Benavides v Peru, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights also found a violation of Article 8 of the ACHR, after having determined that the applicant had been subjected to physical and psychological torture for the purpose of “wear[ing] down his psychological resistance and forc[ing] him to incriminate himself or to confess to certain illegal activities.”92 D. THE BURDEN OF PROOF: STATES HAVE A POSITIVE OBLIGATION TO ENSURE THAT EVIDENCE WAS NOT OBTAINED BY TORTURE International jurisprudence 57. The Committee against Torture regularly makes recommendations to States Parties to adopt legislation implementing Article 15 of the UNCAT and reminds them of their general obligation to take measures to ensure torture evidence is never adduced in their courts of law.93 Countries as diverse as the Russian Federation, the USA, Togo, 84 However, please note there was a strong dissenting opinion of Judges Rozakis, Tulkens, Jebens, Ziemele, Blanku and Power, effectively supporting the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ principle to find that the trial was, in fact, unfair. 85 See Report No. 80/03 on Petition No 12,228, Admissibility decision of 22 October 2003. 86 Report No. 2/99 on Case 11,509, decision of 23 February 1999. 87 As above, at § 85. 88 As above, at § 78. 89 Report No. 5/94 on Case 10,574, decision of 1 February 1994. 90 Report No. 117/09 on Case 12,228, decision of November 19, 2009. 91 As above, at §§ 51-57. 92 Cantoral Benavides v Peru, IACHR (Serie C) No. 69, judgment of 18 August 2000. 93 See Nowak, above note 41, at p 507. 13