A/69/387 taken place and identify the perpetrator. Non-State actors, such as health professionals documenting torture and other ill-treatment are not under any such procedural obligation and may thus, depending on the circumstances, reliably document torture through less elaborate measures that those prescribed in the Istanbul Protocol. Articles 12 and 13 of the Convention against Torture expressly require prompt or immediate investigations upon receipt of complaints of torture. 7 Promptness relates not only to the time within which the investigation must be commenced, but also to the expediency with which it is conducted. The authorities must take whatever reasonable steps they can to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including inter alia forensic evidence. Any deficiency in the investigation that undermines its ability to establish the cause of injury or the person responsible falls foul of this standard. The European Court of Huma n Rights considered that the failure to secure the forensic evidence in a timely manner was one of the important factors contributing to the ineffectiveness of the investigation. 8 An impartial examination requires a competent body, independent from the alleged perpetrator, equipped with full investigative powers in order to secure evidence and establish the facts so that its findings can be brought before the authorities responsible for criminal proceedings. 3. Burden of proof of torture 25. There are different thresholds for the “proof” of torture. 9 The obligation to investigate acts of torture is initiated by the existence of reasonable grounds. Evidence of torture that rises to the level of “proof” in criminal proceedings (that is, beyond a reasonable doubt) should not be necessary to establish State recognition and responsibility for torture or to trigger the obligations that do not involve assigning individual guilt and punishment, such as the implementation of public policies for prevention and administrative or civil remedies, including rehabilitation. This is important because States often claim that torture and their corresponding obligations to address it do not exist because torture has never been “proven” in court. 26. Regarding the exclusionary rule (for example, article 15, Convention against Torture) and the use of torture-tainted information in judicial proceedings, in his last report to the Human Rights Council, 10 the Special Rapporteur noted with great concern that, in practice, the burden of proof on the admissibility of material obtained by torture or other ill-treatment in courts seems to lie with the defendant rather than with the State, creating a real risk that such evidence is admitted in court because the individual is unable to prove that it was obtained under torture. Being in detention makes it difficult to meet this burden and produce any forensic, medical and other evidence required by the high standards of proof in criminal proceedings. This impedes effective investigations and establishment of the facts from the start. 11 Instead, the burden is on States to prove that statements made by the accused have been given of their own free will. 12 __________________ 7 8 9 10 11 12 14-61535 See also Human Rights Committee, General Comment 20, para. 14. See European Court of Human Rights, Bati and Others v. Turkey (app. nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00), § 134, 2004-IV. See Convention against Torture, arts. 3, 12 and 13. See A/HRC/25/60, para. 31. See A/HRC/13/39/Add.5, para. 176. See CAT/C/30/D/219/2002; CAT/C/29/D/193/2001, para. 3.4; CAT/C/RUS/CO/4, para. 21; and CAT/C/TGO/CO/1, para. 24. 7/23