A/HRC/25/60 between States has expanded significantly in the fight against terrorism,2 and some police, security and intelligence agencies (executive agencies) have shown a willingness to receive and rely on information likely to be obtained through torture and other ill-treatment and to share that information with one another. The global trend of giving executive agencies increased powers of arrest, detention and interrogation have retracted the traditional safeguards against torture or other ill-treatment and lead to further abuse of individuals. The practice of information obtained by torture or other ill-treatment for use outside of court proceedings by executive agencies must be examined to ensure the prohibition against torture is upheld, a practice made even more dangerous because of the secrecy and lack of transparency that surrounds it. Regrettably, some States have diluted cardinal principles necessary for preventing and suppressing torture and other ill-treatment. 19. The present report will elaborate the scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors. A. In judicial proceedings 20. Both, the Human Rights Committee and the Committee against Torture have concluded that the exclusionary rule forms a part of, or derived from, the general and absolute prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment.3 In its article 12, the 1975 General Assembly Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, expressly states that “any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment may not be invoked as evidence […] in any proceedings. Article 15 of the Convention provides that “each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made." 4 21. The rationale behind the exclusionary rule is manifold and includes the public policy objective of removing any incentive to undertake torture anywhere in the world by discouraging law enforcement agencies from resorting to the use of torture, thus to prevent torture and other ill-treatment. Furthermore, confessions and other information extracted under torture or ill-treatment are not considered reliable enough as a source of evidence in any legal proceeding. Finally, their admission violates due process and fair trial rights.5 22. As the prohibition against torture and other ill-treatment is absolute and nonderogable under any circumstances it follows that the exclusionary rule must also not be derogable under any circumstances, including in respect of national security6. Further, since the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment is part of customary international law, it 2 3 4 5 6 Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001) and Resolution 1624 (2005) stressed that States must ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism comply with all of their obligations under international human rights law. Human Rights Committee, General comment No. 20 (1992), HRI/GEN/1/Rev.9 (Vol.I), para. 12; CAT/C/30/D/219/2002, para. 6.10 See also article 10 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture; GA res. A/RES/67/161 (2013), para. 16 Burgers and Danelius, The United Nations Convention against Torture: A Handbook to the Convention against Torture (1988), p. 148; Nowak and McArthur, The United Nations Convention against Torture: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, 2008) Ch. 15, para.2 See e.g. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), article 4, paragraph 2; Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, article 2, paragraph 2; A/63/223, para. 34. 5