01200830 E3S0/8 26. In instances where statements made by an accused or third parties are obtained through torture, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has held that the use of the statement's content as evidence to support the charges is anathema to fair trial principles and the interests of justice. It has considered that such use automatically renders the proceedings unfair, except when it is against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made. 76 It has countenanced the exclusion of such evidence where the victim of torture is the accused but also where third parties are the source of the torture-tainted evidence. 77 27. In interpreting treaty provisions such as Article 15 of the CAT, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that reference is first made to the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms in light of the object and purpose of the treaty. Where this interpretation leaves ambiguity or leads to a manifestly absurd or unreasonable result, the preparatory work and other supplementary means of interpretation are to be consulted. 78 5. FINDINGS 28. Before determining the scope of the exception to the exclusionary rule contained in the last phrase of Article 15 and whether this extends to evidence obtained through ill-treatment, coercion or that which is derived from torture-tainted evidence, the Chamber must first consider a number of related matters, including the burden and standard of proof to establish that torture was used to obtain the evidence and the fair trial rights implicated, particularly the right to the presumption of innocence and the right to present exculpatory evidence. 5.1. Preliminary Issues 29. As a preliminary matter, the Trial Chamber dismisses the NUON Chea Defence's argument that the Chamber should limit this decision to determining the permissibility of a form of question posed by the Defence based upon torture-tainted evidence. It is within the treatment is absolute and non-derogable under any circumstances, it follows that the exclusionary rule must also be non-derogable under any circumstances [... ]"); cf SCC Decision, paras 64-65 ("The Supreme Court Chamber cannot categorically exclude that there may be rare and extreme cases where departing from the exclusionary rule is thinkable, the case at hand is certainly not one of them.") 76 Othman (Abu Qatada) v. United Kingdom, para. 264 ("More fundamentally, no legal system based upon the rule of law can countenance the admission of evidence - however reliable - which has been obtained by such a barbaric practice as torture. The trial process is a cornerstone of the rule of law. Torture evidence damages irreparably that process; it substitutes force for the rule of law and taints the reputation of any court that admits it. Torture evidence is excluded to protect the integrity of the trial process and, ultimately, the rule of law itself.") 77 El Haski v. Belgium, Judgement, ECtHR Application No. 649/08, 25 September 2012 ("El Haski v. Belgium"), para. 85. 78 Vienna Convention, Articles 31, 32. Decision on Evidence Obtained through Torture, Public, 5 February 2016 12