emergency, except if a statement or confession obtained in violation of article 7 is used as evidence that torture or other treatment prohibited by this provision occurred.”57 38. The same view was also adopted by the Committee against Torture in its General Comment No. 2: The Committee reminds all States parties to the Convention of the non-derogable nature of the obligations undertaken by them in ratifying the Convention. In the aftermath of the attacks of 11 September 2001, the Committee specified that the obligations in articles 2 (whereby “no exceptional circumstances whatsoever…may be invoked as a justification of torture”), 15 (prohibiting confessions extorted by torture being admitted in evidence, except against the torturer), and 16 (prohibiting cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) are three such provisions that “must be observed in all circumstances”58 39. The Committee against Torture has stated that “the broad scope of the prohibition in Article 15, proscribing the invocation of any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture as evidence in “any proceedings“, is a function of the absolute nature of the prohibition.”59 40. Normally, a decision to admit evidence is based on an evaluative process – the interests of justice and other public policy considerations are weighed against the fairness to the individual on trial. Given the absolute prohibition of torture and other illtreatment though, such a balancing process is inappropriate when it comes to evidence obtained through these means. This applies even to the so-called “fruit of the poisonous tree” – i.e. otherwise legitimate evidence which could not have been found if it were not for the ill-treatment. This principle has long been recognised in the USA as necessary to discourage illegal investigative methods.60 The European Court of Human Rights also affirmed its application in Europe in the case of Jalloh v Germany, going so far as to say evidence obtained through ill-treatment must never be relied on as proof of the victim’s guilt, regardless of its probative value.61 C. PURPOSE AND RELATIONSHIP WITH FAIR TRIAL RIGHTS 41. The purpose behind the general prohibition of admissibility of evidence obtained by torture is twofold.62 First, since the use of information obtained from torture in proceedings is often the reason why torture is applied in the first place, prohibiting its use removes an incentive to torture. Second, statements made under torture are inherently unreliable; admission of such information in proceedings, where the proceedings involve consequences for individuals, may be contrary to principles of “fair 57 Above note 49, at § 6. Above note 32, at § 6. 59 See GK v Switzerland, note 56, at § 6.10 (emphasis added). 60 See e.g. Weeks v United States, 232 US 383 (1914.) 61 Jalloh v Germany, Application 54810/00, judgment of 11 July 2006 – see esp. § 105. 62 Burgers and Danelius, The United Nations Convention against Torture: A Handbook on the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1988) at p. 148. See also C. Inglese, the UN Committee against Torture: An Assessment (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2001) at p. 365. 58 10