01200845 E350/8 international level. The free admissibility of evidence militates in favour of accepting derivative evidence so long as the proposed use does not circumvent the prohibition against invoking the contents of torture-tainted confessions to establish their truth. However the probative value of such evidence will be assessed on a case by case basis. The Chamber now turns to the issue of when evidence established to have been obtained by torture may nonetheless be invoked during these proceedings. 5.5. The Exception to the Exclusionary Rule Contained in Article 15 71. In addition, Article 15 states that such evidence may be used "against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.,,137 The SCC Decision states that "Case 002/01 does not involve charges of torture. Accordingly the sole exception in Article 15 of the CAT permitting use of a statement derived from torture [ ... ] does not apply." The charges in Case 002/02 include torture, thereby necessitating an assessment of which evidence may fall within the exception. 138 72. The plain language of the exception suggests that it should be interpreted narrowly. 139 It provides a singular instance of what may be proven, namely "that a statement was made." The language of Article 15 does not clarify how a statement may be used and for what purpose(s). Due to ambiguities within the language of the exception to Article 15, the Chamber makes reference to the purpose of Article 15 as a whole and its drafting history. 140 73. The Chamber notes that the Working Group's first draft of Article 15 did not provide for any permissible uses of torture-tainted evidence. During the drafting of the Convention, language was added to maximize the deterrent effect of the article by allowing statements to be used to prosecute the alleged torturer. 141 If this language is read too broadly, however, it risks undermining the general rule which is to exclude such evidence. Therefore, the permissible scope of invoking torture-tainted evidence must be determined in line with the general purpose of Article 15 as a whole. These include, (1) a public policy of disincentivising torture; (2) preventing the use of unreliable evidence as it is not conducive to ascertaining the 137 Othman (Abu Qatada) v. United Kingdom, para. 266 ("Indeed, the only exception to the prohibition that Article 15 allows is in proceedings against a person accused of torture."). 138 see Decision, para. 67; See a/so, see Decision, para 27; FN 54. 139 see Decision, para. 67. 140 Judge Fenz dissents from this Section 5.5 of the decision, with reasons to follow. 141 An early draft of Article 15 proposed by Sweden did not include any exception. See Swedish Draft. Decision on Evidence Obtained through Torture, Public, 5 February 2016 27