01185921 002/19-09-2007-ECCC/SC Doc No. F26/12 54. The standard of proof was a key issue in domestic jurisdictions, several of which 128 favoured more exacting approach to the burden and standard of proof. Of particular prommence are the cases of Mounir EI-Motassadeq before the Hanseatisches Obedandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) in Hamburg, Germany129 ("EI-Motassadeq") and A. and Others v. Secretary of State (no. 2) before the British House of Lords. 130 In the former case, the Hamburg court found that, in a situation where there are only some indications that evidence was obtained through torture, this does not suffice to exclude it from use in criminal proceedings. 131 In the second case, the majority of the House of Lords conceded that petitioners cannot be realistically expected to prove anything, given their usual limited access to information; they may merely "raise the issue" before the competent authority. 132 Nevertheless, echoing the EI-Motassadeq case, the majority found that evidence must be excluded only if it is established, "by means of [ ... ] diligent inquiries into the sources that it is practicable to carry out and on balance of probabilities", to have been extracted through 133 torture. In case of doubt, evidence is admissible, though this factor is to be borne in mind in the evaluation of such evidence. 134 While this standard has been criticised on human rights grounds as being too exigent and failing to effectively shift the burden of proof on the doubt that a statement of the accused or suspect person had not been obtained through oppressive conduct); Prosecutor v. Seler Halilovic, IT -01-48-T, "Decision on Admission into Evidence ofInterview of the Accused", Trial Chamber I Section A, 20 June 2005, paras 11, 17 (rejecting a defence's request for a voir dire hearing, owing to the dearth of evidence in support of the defence's allegation that the accused's interview was not voluntarily given; Prosecutor v. Seler Halilovic, IT-01-48-AR73.2, "Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Concerning Admission of Record of Interview of the Accused from the Bar Table", Appeals Chamber, 19 August 2005, para. 46 (criticising the Halilovic Trial Chamber for having failed to consider that a break in the accused's interview constituted a sufficient element to prompt the Trial Chamber "to explore more fully the voluntariness of the interview", without necessarily holding a voir dire). l2X See, India v. Singh (1996), 108 c.c.c. (3d) 274 (B.C.S.c., Canada), paras 21, 33 (extradition proceedings adopting the balance of probabilities test, finding that the allegations of torture were established to the required threshold in a case in which their "persuasive nature" was coupled with the absence of any denial by the alleged torturers); Li v. Canada (Minister ol Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FCA 1 (Canada), paras 21-28; Suresh v. Canada [2000] 2 FCR 592, paras 151-152 (both adopting the balance of probabilities standard in cases of refoulement of a refugee to a country which exposed the individual to a risk of torture); Harkat (Re), 2005 FC 393 (Canada), para. 116 (immigration proceedings adopting the balance of probabilities test). See conversely, Mohammad Zeki Mahjoub v. Canada (Minister olCitizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1503, (Canada), paras 30,33 (whether the applicant had a realistic opportunity under the circumstances to provide detailed information corroborating the allegations of torture was significant to the findings). See also Re Guantanamo Detainee Cases, 355 F. Supp. 2d 443 (D.D.C. 2005), p. 474 (the petitioning detainees were required to make "sufficient allegations"). 129 Higher Regional Court, Hamburg, Germany, decision of 14 June 2005, case numbers 2 BJs 85/01 - 2 StE 4/02 - 5 IV - 1/04, (available in German at: http://openjur.de/u/86173.html [accessed on 26 October 2015]). 130 A. and Others v. Secretary ol State (no. 2), paras. 116-118 (deportation proceedings adopting the balance of probabilities test). 131 El-Motassadeq, paras 12,24. 132 A. and Others v. Secretary olState (no. 2) ,para. 116. 133 A. and Others v. Secretary olState (no. 2), para. 121, 125. Lord Hope cited with approval El-Motassadeq. 134 A. and Others v. Secretary olState (no. 2), para. 118. DECISION ON OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENT LISTS - FULL REASONS 26/40