01200837 E3S0/8 the interests of a fair trial to permit as a rule the use of unreliable evidence obtained through illegal means. The Accused should be permitted to adduce evidence that he asserts is exculpatory, but not at the expense of the integrity of the proceedings. IOO Therefore, the Chamber considers that the exclusionary rule in Article 15 applies to all parties to this case, including the NUON Chea Defence and torture-tainted evidence which it asserts to be exculpatory. 48. The Supreme Court Chamber, while not reaching a final conclusion on the issue, leaves open the possibility that "[a]n exception could potentially arise in situations of extreme necessity, based on the combined factors of the provenience of evidence, its reliability, its overwhelming exonerating value and its uniqueness [ ... J". In this regard, the Supreme Court Chamber sets an extraordinarily high standard to permit the Accused to use evidence obtained through torture. The Trial Chamber has concluded, consistent with the European Court for Human Rights, the Inter-American Court for Human Rights and the UN Special Rapporteur for torture, that the exclusionary rule is a non-derogable obligation. As such, it applies to all parties in these proceedings, including the Accused. In any event, the Chamber is not satisfied that based on all of the circumstances here, the Accused has established that precluding his proposed uses of torture-tainted evidence, such as those summarised in section 5.5.2, would create a "flagrant denial of justice." 101 5.4. Application and Breadth of the Exclusionary Rule 49. As a preliminary point, the Supreme Court Chamber has held that "Article 15 of the CAT does not [ ... ] mandate the sweeping exclusion of the whole documentation surrounding the interrogation of the torture victim" and that "information originating from persons other than the torture victim" may be used.10 2 The Trial Chamber considers that certain objective information contained on confessions is not part of the statement obtained through torture and therefore not covered by the exclusionary rule in Article 15 of the CAT. These may include information concerning the recorded identity of the detainee subject to interrogation, his or her date of arrest, incarceration, and/or execution which were recorded either during statement in question had already been admitted into evidence. See R v. Vagaia, HC AK CRI 2006-092-16228 [200S] NZHC 306,11 March 200S, para. 15 (available at: FI6.1.6). 100 A and Others, paras 39, 52 ("The principles of the common law, standing alone, in my opinion compel the exclusion of third party torture evidence as unreliable, unfair, offensive to ordinary standards of humanity and decency and incompatible with the principles which should animate a tribunal seeking to administer justice."). 101 SCC Decision, paras 64-65. TC Decision, supra. para. 25. 102 SCC Decision, para. 6S. Decision on Evidence Obtained through Torture, Public, 5 February 2016 19