01185920 002/19-09-2007-ECCC/SC Doc No. F26/12 evidence of a pattern of similar human rights abuses, for example, by a large number of complaints of similar conduct supported by corroborating evidence. 121 On the other hand, where the judicial system is independent and impartial, and "allegations of torture [are J conscientiously investigated", it is conceivable to require a higher standard of proof. 122 In EI Haski v. Belgium as well as in Othman v. The United Kingdom, the exclusionary rule was held to apply where there is a "real risk" that a statement was obtained through torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, in light of the "special difficulties in proving allegations of torture [ ... J in a criminal system which was complicit in the very practices which it existed to prevent". 123 53. Turning to international criminal proceedings, the ICTY Trial Chamber in the case of Prosecutor v. Martie adopted guidelines on the standards governing the admission of evidence,124 which elaborated on the terms of the ICTY RPE barring evidence "obtained by methods which cast substantial doubt on its reliability" and evidence the admission of which is "antithetical to, and would seriously damage, the integrity of the proceedings". 125 The guidelines notably stipulate that, if there are "prima facie indicia" that statements were not voluntarily given, the burden shifts to the party seeking to admit the evidence to prove that the statements were not obtained through oppressive conduct. 126 In other instances where the defence submitted that an accused's confession was obtained by means of oppressive conduct, the ICTY clarified that, in the context of deciding whether to apply a procedure akin to a voir dire as known in Common Law jurisdictions, the defence is first required to "satisfy" the court by showing that the confession may have been obtained by means that render it unreliable before the court; once this threshold is met, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was obtained voluntarily. 127 121 Denmark v. Greece, App. No. 3321/67; Norway v. Greece, App. No. 3322/67; Sweden v. Greece, App. No. 3323/67; Netherlands v. Greece, App. No. 3344/67, in Yearbook o/the European Convention on Human Rights, Vol. 12,1969, p. 502, para. 14. 122 El Haski v. Belgium, paras 86, 88; Othman v. The United Kingdom, paras 272-280, 282. 123 El Haski v. Belgium, paras 86, 88; Othman v. The United Kingdom, paras 263, 272, 276, 285. 124 Prosecutor v. Milan Martie, IT-95-11-T, "Decision Adopting Guidelines on the Standards Governing the Admission of Evidence", Trial Chamber, 19 January 2006 ("Prosecutor v. Martie"), Annex A, para. 9. 125 ICTY RPE, Rule 95. 126 Prosecutor v. Martie, para. 9, confirmed in Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadiie, IT-95-5/18-T, "Decision on Guidelines for the Admission of Evidence through Witnesses", Trial Chamber, 19 May 2010, para. 11 referring, inter alia, to Prosecutor v. PerL§ie, IT -04-81-T, "Order on Guidelines on the Admission and Presentation of Evidence and Conduct of Counsel in Court", Trial Chamber, 29 October 2008, para. 38. 127 Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalie et al., IT -96-21, "Decision on the Motions for the Exclusion of Evidence by the Accused, Zejnil Delalic", Trial Chamber, 25 September 1997, paras 31-33, 40; Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalie et al., (IT-96-21), "Decision on Zdravko Mucic's Motion for the Exclusion of Evidence", Trial Chamber, 2 September 1997, paras 42, 48 (finding that it was incumbent on the Prosecutor to establish beyond reasonable DECISION ON OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENT LISTS - FULL REASONS 25/40