intelligence information which has or may have been obtained under torture” is likely to give rise to state responsibility for complicity in torture.31 Certain behavior by officials in the state receiving torture information may give rise to individual criminal responsibility. In these cases, the state has the duty to investigate and prosecute. National jurisdictions may have differing definitions of complicity in the commission of a crime. Under international criminal law, the three essential elements of complicity are: 1) the commission of a crime; 2) a material contribution to the commission of that crime; and 3) an intention that the crime be committed or reckless disregard for the potential that the crime be committed.32 The Committee Against Torture has stated that: States parties are obligated to adopt effective measures to prevent public authorities and other persons acting in an official capacity from directly committing, instigating, inciting, encouraging, acquiescing in or otherwise participating or being complicit in acts of torture as defined in the Convention. Thus, States parties should adopt effective measures to prevent such authorities or others acting in an official capacity or under colour of law, from consenting to or acquiescing in any acts of torture.33 Torture and Counterterrorism Policy The willingness of Western countries since September 11, 2001 to turn a blind eye to abuse in the name of counterterrorism cooperation poses a significant challenge to efforts to eradicate torture. This is particularly true in the context of cooperation with security and intelligence services known for abuse. It is all too easy for information obtained by torture to be used by European authorities to guide operational decisions by the police and security services. In some cases it may also be introduced into the judicial process, either during the investigative phase or even at trial. Far from shying away from such use, some European governments have openly questioned whether the ban should cover intelligence cooperation with governments that torture. 31 Ibid. 32 Daniel M. Greenfield, “The crime of complicity in genocide: how the international criminal tribunals for Rwanda and Yugoslavia got it wrong, and why it matters,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, March 22, 2008, http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-189742041/crime-complicity-genocide-international-html (accessed February 24, 2010). 33 Committee Against Torture, General Comment No. 2, CAT/C/GC/2, January 24, 2008. http://daccess-ddsny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G08/402/62/PDF/G0840262.pdf?OpenElement (accessed March 10, 2010). “No Questions Asked” 14