15 … Whether the use of torture for the purpose of extracting information can be established or not is irrelevant in cases of enforced disappearances.”114 69. The UK House of Lords’ judgment in A & Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department sets a more promising precedent. The case concerned terrorism suspects who had been made subject to control orders by the Executive on the basis of intelligence from the United States. Despite the lack of an exclusionary rule in UK legislation,115 the Lords ruled unanimously that, if it were more likely than not that evidence had been obtained as a result of torture, it should be excluded – regardless of where in the world the torture was committed or who the perpetrator happened to be.116 This overturned the lower courts’ judgment that the UK Government would have to have been involved (directly or indirectly) in the torture for the evidence to be inadmissible.117 70. The UK Government stated for the record during the Committee against Torture’s consideration of its 4th periodic report, that it did not intend to rely upon “evidence where there is a knowledge or belief that torture has taken place.”118 However, it also affirmed that “evidence obtained as a result of any acts of torture by British officials, or with which British authorities were complicit, would not be admissible in criminal or civil proceedings in the United Kingdom,”119 and it was this qualification (or refinement) of the general rule on which it relied in A and Others. E. THE APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-ADMISSIBILTY OF EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY TORTURE TO OTHER FORMS OF ILL-TREATMENT 71. States cannot apply the exclusionary rule only to information obtained through a narrowly defined concept of “torture”, distinguishing other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment120 72. Several arguments support its application in cases where evidence has or may have been obtained by other forms of ill-treatment. 73. First, as a preventive measure. Although Article 16 of the UNCAT, which prohibits cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, does not make specific reference to Article 15, it can be argued that this is more of a quirk resulting from the drafting process rather than a deliberate omission.121 In fact, Article 16 is clearly intended to extend States Parties’ obligations in relation to the prevention of other forms of ill-treatment, and (as discussed above) prevention is a major one of the principal aims of Article 15. In order to reconcile this fact and reach a proper construction of Article 15, it is therefore necessary to exclude evidence obtained through any sort of treatment prohibited at international law. 114 Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, UN doc. A/61/259, at § 56 (14 August 2006). 115 See Duberstein, Excluding Torture: A Comparison of the British and American Approaches to Evidence Obtained by Third Party Torture, North Carolina Journal of International Law & Commercial Regulation, Vol. XXXII, 2006, p 159 at pp 162 & 187. 116 Above note 109, at §§ 51 & 113 (judgments of Lords Bingham and Hope). 117 As above. 118 See UN doc. CAT/C/CR/33/3, at § 3(g), (10 December 2004). 119 As above (emphasis added). 120 Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, “Interim Report to the General Assembly” UN Doc. A/59/324, at §§ 13-16 (1 September 2004); and the 1975 General Assembly Declaration against Torture, supra, Article 12. 121 See Nowak, above note 41, pp534-536. 17