50 Tainted by Torture: Examining the Use of Torture Evidence | 2018 235 Ibid, Article 184. 236 Constitution of Japan (1947), Article 38(2). 237 Code of Criminal Procedure (2011), Article 199. 238 Appeal # 0004290.80.2010.8.26.0431 of the Court of Appeals of the State of Sao Paulo. 239 McCormick on Evidence (2016), para 145. 240 David A. Moran, ‘In Defence of the Corpus Delicti Rule’, Ohio State Law Journal, 64, no. 3 (2003), p. 817. 241 Opper v United States (1954) 348 U.S.84, 93. 242 Code of Criminal Procedure (2006), Article 428. 243 French Supreme Court, Criminal Chamber, 21 October 1965, No. 65-90.318. 244 Code of Criminal Procedure (2006), Article 427. 245 Hlayisiani Chauke v The State (70/12) [2012] ZASCA 143. 246 Evidence Act No 46 of 1963, Revised Edition 2014 (2012). 247 Judgment of the Spanish Supreme Court, 307/2008 of 5 June 2008. 248 Judgment of the Spanish Supreme Court, 174/2015 of 14 May 2015. 249 Judgment of the Spanish Supreme Court, 655/2011 of 28 June 2011. 250 S v Mthembu (379/07) [2008] ZASCA 51, para 34. 251 R v Fulling [1987], 2 All E.R. 65; Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Section 76. 252 Unless the prosecution proves that there was a reasonable excuse for there not being such a recording, or there are ‘exceptional circumstances which, in the interests of justice, justify the admission of the evidence’ – Criminal Investigation Act 2006 (WA), s.118. 253 Habeas Corpus, #78708, Federal Supreme Court. 9 March 1999. 254 Strafprozeßordnung, (StPO), Section 136. 255 Muslum Turfan, 18 November 2015. 256 ‘La confesión rendida sin la asistencia del defensor carecerá de todo valor probatorio’, Artículo 20 B II, Constitución Política de los estados unidos mexicanos. 257 US Code, Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure) (2012), para 3501(c). 258 Miranda v Arizona [1966], 384 U.S. 436. 259 Cf. UN Committee Against Torture, Concluding Observations: Russian Federation, 6 June 2002, CAT/C/CR/28/4, para 6(b). 260 UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Japan, 18 December 2008, CCPR/C/JPN/CO/5, para 19; CPT Standards, 12th General Report CPT/Inf (2002), 15, para 35. 261 UN ONHCR, Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment, Juan Ernesto Mendez, para 99. 262 Ibid, para 63. This recommendation had been made years earlier by the then Special Rapporteur, Sir Nigel Rodley (see UN General Assembly, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, 3 July 2001, A/56/156, para 39(d). See also, UN Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Question of Torture, Theo Van Boven, submitted pursuant to Commission Resolution 2002/38, 17 December 2002, E/CN.4/2003/68, para 26(e)) 263 Ibid, paras 69-75; 99, 100. The recommendation also is made, in Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Question of Torture, Theo Van Boven, submitted pursuant to Commission Resolution 2002/38, para 26(e): ‘No statement of confession made by a person deprived of liberty, other than one made in presence of a judge or a lawyer, should have a probative value in court, except as evidence against those who are accused of having obtained the confession by unlawful means’. 264 Ibid, para 99. 265 Ibid, paras 84-87. The recommendation also is made in Report of the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, 3 July 2001, para 39(f). 266 Ibid, paras 65, 76-78. 267 Association for the Prevention of Torture, ‘‘Yes, Torture Prevention Works’: Insights from a global research study on 30 years of torture prevention’ (2016), pp. 6-7. 268 For example, Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, 22 May 2012, on the right to information in criminal proceedings. 269 For example, A. Birtles, ‘The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and the electronic recording of police interviews with suspects’, Human Rights Law Review (2001), 1, no. 1; J. Chalmers, ‘Recording of police interviews’, in J. Chalmers et al. (eds.), Post-Corroboration Safeguards Review Report of the Academic Expert Group (The Scottish Government, 2014), pp. 118-123; D. Donovan and J. Rhodes, ‘Comes a Time: The Case for Recording Interrogations’, Montana Law Review, 61, no. 1, p. 223; C. Ingrain, J. Pasternak and R. Lorrain, ‘Pour une généralisation de l’enregistrement audiovisuel des gardes à vue et des interrogatories en matière correctionnelle’, La Semaine Juridique, 7 September 2015; T. P. Sullivan, ‘Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations: Everybody Wins’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (2005), 95, no. 3, pp. 1127-1144; A. E. Taslitz, ‘High Expectations and Some Wounded Hopes: The Policy and Politics of a Uniform Statute on Videotaping Custodial Interrogations’, Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy (2012), 7, pp. 400-454. 270 Salduz v Turkey. 271 Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa (2003), Section N(6)(d)(i).