Both Committees discussed the claims of former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray (2002-2004) that the UK routinely and knowingly accepted information obtained under torture by Uzbek security services. In response to Murray’s objections at the time, the chief legal advisor in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office assured him that the Convention against Torture did not prohibit the receipt of information obtained under torture.77 The JCHR reached a different conclusion, finding that the “systematic receipt of information known or thought likely to have been obtained from detainees subject to torture” is tantamount to complicity in torture and creates a market for torture.78 The FAC adopted a similar position, stating that “there is a risk that use of evidence which may have been obtained under torture on a regular basis, especially where it is not clear that protestations about mistreatment have elicited any change in behaviour by foreign intelligence services, could be construed as complicity in such behaviour.”79 In its response to the JCHR report, the UK government said its position was that “the receipt of intelligence should not occur where it is known or believed that receipt would amount to encouragement to the intelligence services of other States to commit torture.80 Yet the previous government refused to acknowledge even the possibility that its continuing and close intelligence cooperation with Pakistan, a country whose security services have a wellestablished record of torture, might have that effect. Human Rights Watch considers that uncritical use of such material breaches the UK’s duty to take positive steps to prevent torture wherever and by whomever committed. We further consider that it may amount to complicity in torture. And as a policy matter, it undoubtedly undermines UK efforts to eradicate torture around the world. Torture Evidence and the Burden of Proof Despite its problematic treatment of torture intelligence referred to above, A and Others definitively affirmed the prohibition on the use of torture evidence in British judicial proceedings. The case arose because of allegations that the UK government was using 77 Joint Committee on Human Rights, “Allegations of UK Complicity in Torture,” Twenty-third report of Session 2008-09, August 4, 2009, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/152/15202.htm (accessed November 11, 2009), para. 14 and Ev. 55-56. 78 Ibid., paras. 4243. 79 House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC), Human Rights Annual Report 2008, Seventh Report of Session 2008-09, August 9, 2009, para. 83. 80 The Government Reply to the Twenty-Third Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Allegations of UK Complicity in Torture, October 2009, http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm77/7714/7714.pdf (accessed February 24, 2010), p. 4 “No Questions Asked” 30