9 unreliability as a witness, not whether the assaults and torture rendered his testimony inadmissible. [18] The learned magistrate and the court below found that the assault and torture did not render Ramseroop’s testimony unreliable – a conclusion I think was correct. However, neither the magistrate nor the court below was asked to consider the admissibility his evidence even though it is beyond dispute that the chain of events which resulted in the discovery of the Hilux and of the metal box was precipitated by his unlawful treatment. [19] In this court the parties were requested to address us on the admissibility of Ramseroop’s evidence. The appellant submitted that the evidence relating to the discovery of the Hilux and the metal box must be excluded because it was obtained in violation of Ramseroop’s right not to be tortured. Counsel for the State conceded that the evidence revealed that Ramseroop had been tortured but she made no submissions regarding the admissibility of his evidence. [20] It is necessary to record that Mr Zamani Mhlongo, who was called as a witness for the State, and Mr Sithembiso Philip Ngcobo, who gave evidence on behalf of the appellant, both testified that they had been tortured and assaulted as a result of which they made false statements to the police. Zamani was 16 at the time. His court testimony departed materially from the statement he had made to the police. This resulted in the court declaring him a hostile witness. Ngcobo testified that the police applied electric shocks to his testicles. The magistrate found that their evidence could not be relied on because of their close relationship with the appellant.