01200847 E350/8 based on the fact that a statement was made. The reliability of the information contained in the tainted evidence is not implicated if its use is limited in this way.146 For example, when information is disclosed to interrogators because a statement has been made by an individual subject to torture, the disclosure of the information in itself is a fact which exists independently of the truth of the statement. Such facts can be used as evidence of the cause of an action taken following a confession, such as proof of further arrests triggered by the disclosure of names or of a purge policy or process. By limiting the permissible uses of such evidence in this way, concerns about the unreliability of torture-tainted evidence are attenuated. 76. Third, the exclusionary rule is also meant to preserve the integrity of the proceedings by preventing the Chamber from according any judicial legitimacy to the abhorrent conduct which procured the evidence. 147 This concern however must be considered in tandem with the need to ensure the availability of evidence to prosecute those accused of torture. The Chamber considers that the limited use of torture-tainted evidence as envisaged would not legitimise torture, but would permit a full assessment of the alleged conduct in this case. Given the restrictions on its use, the evidence will assist the Chamber in ascertaining the truth and shed light on reprehensible and inhuman practices where such occurred, in accordance with the obligations imposed by the CAT.148 Therefore, the need to ensure the integrity of the proceedings does not militate against a complete prohibition on the use of torture-tainted evidence in this case where the Chamber must make determinations of responsibility for acts of torture. 77. Fourth, most, if not all, of the international jurisprudence cited by the parties and considered by the Chamber in this decision have arisen where the accused are defending against allegations contained in torture-derived confessions. Where the accused themselves have been coerced into confessing, there are manifold fair trial and due process concerns. 146 T. 31 July 2012, p. 108 (President: "[T]he Chamber has maintained its position firmly that it shall always follow [the CAT]. [ ... ] And during these proceedings, the Chamber shall not allow parties to refer to the content of any of the confessions that were extracted by torture because the contents of the confessions were somehow the result of tortures. And if parties wish to refer to other annotations or the dates on the confessions, parties are allowed to do so."). 147 A and Others, para. 39 (noting appellant's contention that permitting use of torture-tainted statement would infringe the party's rights and the fairness of the proceedings, shock the judicial conscience, abuse or degrade the proceedings and involve the state in moral defilement."); Rome Statute, Article 69(7)(prohibiting the use of evidence obtained in violation of internationally recognized human rights where the violation casts substantial doubt on the reliability of the evidence or the admission of the evidence would be antithetical to and would seriously damage the integrity ofthe proceedings.) 148 See e.g., UNCAT, Articles 5, 12. Decision on Evidence Obtained through Torture, Public, 5 February 2016 29