74. Second, as the obligation laid out in article 15 of the UNCAT derives from the absolute prohibition of torture, and as the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is equally absolute in nature, it follows that any evidence obtained by other forms of ill-treatment must also be declared inadmissible in any proceedings. 75. Finally, a literal interpretation of Article 15 of the UNCAT restricting its ambit to torture alone could risk undermining the treaties’ preventive object and purpose. The same would apply to Article 10 of the IACPPT. 76. The application of the principle of non-admissibility of evidence obtained by torture to other forms of ill-treatment is supported by the Committee against Torture. In its General Comment No.2, the Committee against Torture provided that “Articles 3 to 15 are likewise obligatory as applied to both torture and ill-treatment” and that “Articles 3 to 15 of the Convention constitute specific preventive measures that the States parties deemed essential to prevent torture and ill-treatment.”122 The same approach has been supported by the Committee during the review of State Party reports .123 77. As indicated in the previous section, the Human Rights Committee also does not make a distinction between statements or confessions obtained through torture or other prohibited treatment.124 V. THE EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF CONFESSIONS 78. Confessions in many contexts are regarded as the “crown of evidence.”125 It is commonly known that one of the most frequent purposes of torture is the extraction of confessions. Furthermore, the fact that suspects can be convicted on the basis of a confession alone creates an environment conducive to torture.126 79. The Special Rapporteur on Torture has elaborated on several proposals to rectify the reliance on confessions to convict a person: “As a first but important step, criminal procedure codes should be amended and only accept confessions which are made in the presence of a competent and truly independent lawyer and further confirmed before the judge. Furthermore, confessions alone should never be sufficient for a conviction, but should always require further supportive evidence.”127 80. The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture has provided further, “in the context of the prevention of torture and other forms of ill-treatment, it is of fundamental importance to develop methods of crime investigation capable of reducing reliance on confessions, and other evidence and information obtained via interrogations, for the purpose of securing convictions.”128 122 Above note 32, at §§ 6 and 25 (emphasis added). Committee against Torture, Concluding observations on FYROM, UN doc. A/63/44, § 44; on Japan, UN doc. A/62/44, § 41; on Kazakhstan, UN doc. A/64/44, § 41; on Uzbekistan, UN doc. A/63/44, § 37; on Australia, UN doc. A/63/44, § 39; on Indonesia, UN doc. A/63/44, § 42; on the Russian Federation, UN doc. A/62/44, § 36; on Tajikistan, UN doc. A/62/44, § 38; on Ukraine, UN doc. A/62/44, § 45; on The Philippines, UN doc. A/64/44, § 52. 124 Above note 49. 125 Above note 107. 126 As above, at §60. 127 As above, at § 101. 128 The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture Standards, CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1 - Rev. 2009 123 18