01200836 E350/8 courts, aware of the importance of outlawing this heinous phenomenon, have recognised that the prohibition against torture operates at the level of states as well as individuals. 96 45. Furthermore, the ECtHR has held that "the admission of torture evidence is manifestly contrary, not just to the provisions of Article 6 [of the European Convention on Human Rights], but to the most basic international standards of a fair trial" and that "[i]t would make the whole trial not only immoral and illegal, but also entirely unreliable in its outcome.,,97 In this regard, the Chamber notes that the intrinsic unreliability of torture tainted evidence does not vary based on the party invoking it, nor by the fact that it is allegedly exculpatory in nature. The purpose of the exclusionary rule at guaranteeing a reliable outcome in the interest of a fair trial would therefore be thwarted if it were invoked by any party, including the Accused. 46. In this case, NUON Chea is alleged to be responsible for the torture which has tainted the evidence in question and now seeks to rely on that same evidence as he asserts it to be exculpatory. This is not the primary situation which was envisaged when the CAT was adopted. The drafters of Article 15 were instead focused on the abuse of state authorities of those in their custody for the purposes of attaining information, and later invoking that evidence to obtain a conviction. 98 The Chamber nonetheless considers that the exclusionary rule, as an essential measure contained within the CAT, is inextricably linked with the prohibition against torture and must apply to individuals (including the Accused in this case) as well as to state authorities. 47. Although the NUON Chea Defence notes legal provisions and jurisprudence of various countries (including Cambodia) relevant to confessions, the Chamber has not identified any case where an Accused has been permitted to invoke torture-tainted evidence on the basis of his fair trial rights or for any other reason. 99 Moreover, the Chamber considers that it is not in Prosecutor v. Furundtija, paras 145-146 ("[T]he international community, aware of the importance of outlawing this heinous phenomenon, has decided to suppress any manifestation of torture by operating both at the interstate level and at the level of individuals. No legal loopholes have been left."); See also, Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, 14 November 1945-1 October 1946, Vol. XXII, p. 466 ("[C]rimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced."). 97 Othman (Abu Qatada) v. United Kingdom, para. 267. 98 UN Doc. E/CNAI1314, UN Economic and Social Council, 35 th session, 19 December 1978, paras 13,21, 29,43-45. There was comparatively little discussion concerning the exclusionary rule contained in then Article 13. See paras 85-86. 99 See NUON Chea Defence's Submissions, paras 21-22, 27; The NUON Chea Defence also relies upon a New Zealand High Court case to support its position. This case does not involve torture-tainted evidence and the 96 Decision on Evidence Obtained through Torture, Public, 5 February 2016 18