BEWARE THE GIFT OF POISON FRUIT Even a visit which does not reveal any information which could impact negatively on the treatment of any suspect could have unintended consequences. Decisions to interact with States that torture must be made in a way which is controlled carefully to avoid complicity in human rights abuses, or a perception of endorsement. Requests for information Questions posed have the potential to lead to a violation of human rights law. Agencies should carefully evaluate the risks posed by requesting information from questionable agencies, and attempt to ensure the person is treated in line with international human rights standards. Good practice for the receipt of information likely obtained by torture For inbound information, a proper assessment of the information must determine whether it has likely been produced as a result of torture. Information should additionally be checked for accuracy and analysed in the light of the context from which the information originates. As noted above, acceptance of information can condone torture and lead to State responsibility for the wrongful acts. All agencies should adopt policies for the receipt of information from such States, with special focus on the reliability and accuracy of the information. Where a State has a questionable human rights record, even the ‘passive’ receipt of information should be viewed with suspicion, and rejected where appropriate. The provenance of intelligence must always be caveated in one way or another Authorities have an interest and responsibility to ensure the information it shares is accurate and appropriate for the purpose. It is also important that the authorities control, to the extent they are able, the use of such shared information. This is known as the control principle, and is “rule number one of intelligence sharing.”50 50 38 Ibid.