BEWARE THE GIFT OF POISON FRUIT exclude torture-tainted evidence in criminal proceedings only, and only when it was established that such evidence had been obtained by torture. This peculiar choice of wording has caused real difficulty in the application of the rule, as the burden of proving torture is typically left on the accused, making the rule, in many cases, illusory. As a result of these weaknesses, authoritative commentators including the Special Rapporteurs on torture and counter-terrorism have recommended that the exclusionary rule be interpreted to apply much more widely, to include the activities of executive actors. 26 The approach taken by the Eminent Jurists Panel on terrorism, counter-terrorism and human rights was also to recognise that, in practice, the transition from an operation that is purely executive to one that is quasi-judicial or judicial is often seamless. Operational intelligence is often relied on in legal proceedings that follow. 27 The case of Hassan Diab, 28 currently being heard before the Canadian courts, is likely to have bearing on whether and to what extent operational intelligence should be excluded prior to its activation in a judicial context. If we recall that the purpose for the adoption of the exclusionary rule was to disincentivize torture, States should be proactive to prohibit not just information shown to be established by torture, but should also view with serious suspicion and prohibit the use of any information obtained in violation of procedural safeguards intended to preserve the physical security and dignity of an accused. Due to the wide interpretation of article 15 permitted by the UNCAT and the lack of guidelines, now would be a good opportunity to encourage further dialogue between experts and States parties, to review the exclusionary rule in light of a goal-oriented approach, rather than focussing excessively on the strict legalistic approach. For instance, a further general comment by the Committee against 26 27 28 24 Report by the Special Rapporteur on torture, Juan E. Méndez, UN Doc. A/ HRC/16/52, 3 February 2011, paras.53-57, and report of the Special Rapporteur on countering terrorism, Ben Emmerson, UN Doc. A/67/396, 26 September 2012, paras.48–49. ICJ, Assessing Damage, Urging Action; Report of the Eminent Jurists Panel on Terrorism, Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights (Geneva, 2009), p.85. See ‘Justice for Hassan Diab’, a website supporting the release of Mr Diab and tracking the progress of the case through the Canadian courts, at http://www. justiceforhassandiab.org/news.