The Special Rapporteur on Torture has also stated that the burden of proof of absence of coercion should rest with the prosecuting authority where it seeks to use information against a detainee.17 The logic of such findings is sound. It is an insurmountable obstacle to any victim of torture to collect the necessary supporting evidence, such as legal files, registers of police custody and visits, to prove the merits of their case. Such evidence is held by the State party and often unavailable to the victim.18 Key State actors, such as judges, must act to ensure compliance with the rule. Even without an allegation of torture, it is incumbent on each judge to make sure the evidence admitted to the court has not been obtained by unlawful means. Judges should be prepared to ask the prosecution to prove such evidence was not obtained by torture, or that the confession was not obtained by other measures of coercion.19 Prosecutors therefore also have an important role in the exclusion of evidence obtained by ill-treatment. Art.16 of the UN Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors states: When prosecutors come into possession of evidence against suspects that they know or believe on reasonable grounds was obtained through recourse to unlawful methods, which constitute a grave violation of the suspect's human rights, especially involving torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or other abuses of human rights, they shall refuse to use such evidence against anyone other than those who used such methods, or inform the Court accordingly, and shall take all necessary steps to ensure that 20 those responsible for using such methods are brought to justice. Though it is clear that evidence should be excluded where torture has left a visible or recognizable mark on a victim, the Committee against Torture has repeatedly stated that “such marks should not be a prerequisite for ruling the evidence obtained under torture was invalid.”21 Where torture or ill-treatment is alleged or suspected, the UNCAT describes the duty of States parties to investigate the truth. In Ktiti v. Morocco, the Committee found that as the State party had not investigated the allegation, and had relied on information allegedly obtained through torture, it had violated Art.15 of the Convention.22 Where there is such an investigation, and prior to any hearing to assess whether such evidence should be admitted, the victim should be provided with access to legal assistance and independent doctors, to allow him or her to collect the evidence necessary to substantiate the claim. The prohibition should be expressly stated in domestic legislation The Committee against Torture has indicated on a number of occasions that laws governing processes subject to article 15 should expressly provide for the exclusion of evidence 17 Special Rapporteur on Torture, Report on Visit to Turkey, E/CN.4/1999/61/Add.1, at paragraph 113(e). SRT, Visit to Brazil, E/CN.4/2001/66/Add.2, 30 March 2001, at para.169(i). 18 See Committee against Torture, Bouabdallah LTAIEF v. Tunisia, No. 189/2001, 20 November 2003, at para.9.17. 19 C. Foley, Combating torture: A manual for judges and prosecutors (Human Rights Centre, University of Essex, 2003), p.50. 20 Article 16, UN Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, Adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, Cuba, 27 August to 7 September 1990. 21 Mr. Bruni, CAT Member (Rapporteur), Summary Record of the 1024th meeting of the Committee against Torture, Initial report of Djibouti, CAT/C/SR.1024, 10 November 2011, at para.29. 22 Ktiti, supra., para.8.8. 4