GUIDE ON ANTI-TORTURE LEGISLATION whether or not statements were made under torture, where an individual makes such an allegation.90 In P.E. v. France, the Committee found that the State authorities bear the burden of proof as an implicit consequence of the absolute prohibition of torture.91 According to the Committee, State authorities have to verify the content of a complainant’s allegations, and where it does not refute the allegations nor include any information on this question in its observations to the Committee, it may be found to have violated its obligations under article 15 of the Convention.92 11. The Committee considers that the exclusionary rule applies to all forms of evidence Article 15 of the Convention explicitly bans “statements” made as a result of torture, but is silent as to evidence otherwise derived from those statements, i.e. derivative evidence (when the evidence is the direct or indirect result of a confession made earlier under torture or ill-treatment). It is clear that the Convention, and general international law, requires the exclusion of more than statements obtained under torture and ill-treatment. The Committee regularly comments on the procedural requirements for suppressing all evidence obtained by the use of torture, even where the Convention only mentions “statements.”93 The Inter-American Court on Human Rights has been more robust, stating that “the absolute character of the exclusionary rule is reflected in the prohibition of granting probative value not only to the evidence obtained directly under duress, but also to evidence deriving from the said act.”94 Given that the practice of using derivative evidence significantly weakens both the deterrent and normative value of the exclusionary rule, a complete ban on the use of derivative evidence is a solid means of protecting detainees from torture. Summary of the elements – Chapter 3 – The exclusionary rule Primary elements ªª National legislation is to exclude explicitly evidence obtained by torture in all proceedings. ªª National legislation is to reflect that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to show that evidence was collected lawfully, where there is an allegation that evidence was obtained by torture. ªª National legislation is to reflect that the exclusionary rule applies to evidence obtained by CIDTP. ªª National legislation is to reflect that the exclusionary rule applies to all forms of evidence. CAT, P.E. v. France (19 December 2002), UN Doc. CAT/C/29/D/193/2001, § 6.3; CAT, G.K. v. Switzerland (15 May 2003), UN Doc. CAT/C/30/D/219/2002, § 6.10. 90 91 CAT, P.E. v. France, op cit. 89, § 6.3. 92 CAT, Ktiti v. Morocco (5 July 2011), UN Doc. CAT/C/46/D/419/2010, § 8.8. 93 See examples in the Report of the Committee against Torture 47th-48th sessions, (2011-2012), UN Doc. A/67/44, pp. 53, 68, 80, 87 and 156. IACtHR, Teodoro Cabrera Garcia and Rodolfo Montiel Flores v. Mexico, Case N°12, 449 (26 November 2010), § 167. 94 30