The Committee against Torture has also required State parties to, inter alia, judicially review all cases in which convictions were based solely on confessions obtained through torture (Concluding Observations on Afghanistan (June 2017) [28]). In the case of Bayarri v. Argentina, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights held that the Chamber of Appeals’ declaration that a forced confession was invalid and annulment of procedural actions arising therefrom constituted an effective measure to stop the consequences of a violation of judicial guarantees (Judgment: Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs (October 2008) [108]). In practice, many judiciaries lack guidance on the operationalisation of the exclusionary rule. For example, as of 2016, no ‘practice direction’ or procedural guidance existed for Tunisian judges on steps to take when allegations of forced confessions are raised in court (REDRESS. Legal Frameworks to Prevent Torture in Africa: Best Practices, Shortcomings and Options Going Forward (2016) pg. 35). The UN Committee against Torture has called on Peru to “build the institutional capacity needed in order to disallow statements obtained under torture” and “[c]compile information on criminal proceedings in which judges, either on their own initiative or at the request of parties to the case, have ruled that [torture-tainted] evidence is inadmissible, and the measures taken in that regard” (UN Committee against Torture. Concluding Observations: Peru (December 2018) [19(a) and ©]). Public prosecutors As per the UN Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors (1990), prosecutors shall, inter alia, “respect and protect human dignity and uphold human rights, thus contributing to ensuring due process and the smooth functioning of the criminal justice system” ([12]). Specifically: “When prosecutors come into possession of evidence against suspects that they know or believe on reasonable grounds was obtained through recourse to unlawful methods, which constitute a grave violation of the suspect’s human rights, especially involving torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or other abuses of human rights, they shall refuse to use such evidence against anyone other than those who used such methods, or inform the Court accordingly, and shall take all necessary steps to ensure that those responsible for using such methods are brought to justice” ([16]). A similar position is adopted in Article F(l) of the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights’ Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa (2003) and the International Association of Prosecutors’ Standards of Professional Responsibility and Statement of the Essential Duties and Rights of Prosecutors (1999) ([4(3)(f)]). The latter also highlights that prosecutors shall “examine proposed evidence to ascertain if it has been lawfully or constitutionally obtained” ([4(3)(e)]). Defence lawyers Legal and procedural safeguards play a vital role in creating a conducive environment to prevent forced confessions, including access to a lawyer in the first hours of detention and throughout judicial proceedings (see, e.g., Principles on Effective Interviewing for Investigations and Information Gathering (2021) [61-62]). As per the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers (1990), lawyers shall, inter alia, “seek to uphold human rights and fundamental freedoms recognized by national and international law” ([14]). As part of their duties towards their clients, lawyers should be able to, inter alia, take “legal action to protect their interests” ([13(b)]), including filing motions to dismiss torturetainted evidence or lodging a criminal complaint of torture. For example, Article 182 of the Chinese Criminal Procedure Law was amended in 2012 to “formalize pre-trial conferences between judges, prosecutors, and defendants and their counsel”, providing the defence with an opportunity to present 26