obtained by torture: where exclusion is simply a rule developed through case law this may not provide a secure enough guarantee to satisfy the requirements of article 15.23 Provisions that permit a judicial authority to assess evidence “in accordance with his innermost conviction” or allowing “the free weighing of evidence” have also been found to be inadequate.24 Supplementary measures to effectively exclude information obtained by torture In order to effectively meet the obligation to exclude evidence obtained by torture, the Committee against Torture has stressed that, in addition to a clear exclusionary rule in domestic law, supplementary measures may also be taken. States could introduce measures to:  Prevent the use of confessions as the sole evidence necessary for a guilty verdict. Such procedures invite force and coercion to extract such a confession.  Exclude all confessions made in the absence of a lawyer, to persons below a certain rank, or to non-judicial officers.25  Guarantee the right against self-incrimination in law, and ensure the accused is informed of this right.  Ensure the burden of proving evidence was obtained by torture or not rests with the State. This burden should be clearly stated in law.  Agree a clear procedure to test a confession for signs of torture. The State might discharge the burden by maintaining detailed detention records, providing an independent medical exam at the beginning and end of custody, and by recording all interrogations. These records should be critically examined by a judge. Association for the Prevention of Torture Centre Jean-Jacques Gautier 10, route de Ferney P.O. Box 137 CH-1211 Geneva 19 www.apt.ch 23 See Ingelse, supra., pp.379-380, citing numerous decisions of the Committee against Torture, e.g. CAT/C/SR.61 at paragraphs 16, 28 and 53. 24 Ibid., citing CAT/C/SR.79, at para.43 and CAT/C/SR.249 at paras.26 and 34. 25 Redress, Bringing the International Prohibition of Torture Home (2006), p.63. 5