Similarly, the ECtHR has concluded that it would be unfair to impose on the applicant a burden of proof that went beyond the demonstration of a ”real risk” that the evidence in question had been thus obtained.21 In doing so, the ECtHR pointed out it is necessary to give due regard to the special difficulties in proving allegations of torture and specified that a degree of flexibility in assessing the burden of proof might be necessary depending on the case. In particular, in El Haski v Belgium22 the Court elaborated that: “In a criminal justice system where the courts are independent of the executive, where cases are prosecuted impartially, and where allegations of torture are conscientiously investigated, one might conceivably require a defendant to prove to a high standard that the evidence against him had been obtained by torture. However, in a criminal justice system which is complicit in the very practices which it exists to prevent, such a standard of proof is wholly inappropriate.” Example from the practice: In the framework of the execution proceeding of the ECtHR judgment El Haski v Belgium, the Belgian Federal Prosecutor’s Office has adopted specific instructions for the relevant authorities (Note 32/2013) in order to prevent the future use of declarations obtained under torture or through other inhuman or degrading treatment. The note states that when a suspect, who is in a foreign country, must be interviewed, it is necessary that a Belgian investigation judge, a federal magistrate, and the police are also present at the interview in the framework of an international judicial cooperation request, if it can be expected that the defence will invoke before the Belgium judge that the evidence had been obtained by torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or that an independent, impartial and serious investigation on the ill-treatment allegations may be difficult to conduct in that country.23 Ensure that there are effective procedure in place to create conditions for effective judicial review and guarantee adequate reparation in case of a violation of the exclusionary rule Once a violation of the prohibition of the use of evidence tainted by torture is found, the question arises as to how to ensure adequate remedies. The CAT Committee has recommended to “ensure that a review of convictions based solely on confessions is conducted, especially if the confessions have been made under torture, and that prompt and impartial investigations are carried out into such cases, so that persons convicted on the basis of coerced evidence are afforded a new trial and adequate redress and the perpetrators are prosecuted and punished, including under the principle of command responsibility.”24 It is also worth analyzing the practice of the ECtHR and the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers – Department of the Execution of Judgments of the ECtHR. Under Article 46 ECHR, the ECtHR may require, in addition to the payment of just satisfaction, the adoption of the following measures by the respondent state: 21 ECtHR, El Haski v Belgium, App. No. 649/08 (25 September 2012). Ibid, § 90. 23 Action Report from Belgique concerning the case El Haski v Belgium (No 649/08) adopted in May 2014, available <https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=DH-DD(2014)601F>. The execution proceeding was closed with Res CM/ResDH(2014)110 adopted by the Committee of Ministers on10 September 2014. 24 CAT Committee, Concluding Observations: Poland (29 August 2019) CAT/C/POL/CO/7, § 11ff. 22 11