20 GÄFGEN v. GERMANY JUDGMENT 36. To admit Ramseroop’s testimony regarding the Hilux and metal box would require us to shut our eyes to the manner in which the police obtained this information from him. More seriously, it is tantamount to involving the judicial process in ‘moral defilement’. This ‘would compromise the integrity of the judicial process (and) dishonour the administration of justice’. In the long term, the admission of tortureinduced evidence can only have a corrosive effect on the criminal justice system. The public interest, in my view, demands its exclusion, irrespective of whether such evidence has an impact on the fairness of the trial. 37. For all these reasons I consider Ramseroop’s evidence relating to the Hilux and metal box to be inadmissible. ...” THE LAW I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION 75. The applicant complained that he had been subjected to torture contrary to Article 3 of the Convention in the context of his police interrogation on 1 October 2002. He argued that he was still a victim of that breach of Article 3, which provides: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” 76. The Government contested that view, arguing that the applicant could no longer claim to be the victim of a violation of Article 3. A. The applicant’s victim status 77. Article 34 of the Convention provides, where relevant: “The Court may receive applications from any person ... claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. ...” 78. The Court considers that in the present case it cannot answer the question whether the applicant subsequently lost his initial status as the victim of a breach of Article 3 of the Convention within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention without having first established how the applicant was treated in the context of his questioning, and without having assessed the severity of that treatment in the light of Article 3. Thereafter, the adequacy or otherwise of the authorities’ response thereto can be considered.