002/19-09-2007-ECCC-OCIJ-PTC that the right to the presumption of innocence set forth at Article 8(2) of the [American] Convention was violated, as Manuel Manríquez was forced to give testimony against himself under torture, to declare his guilt, and for having accepted his confession obtained by coercion as valid’.37 47. The European Court of Human Rights held, In Harutyunyan v. Armenia, that: ‘…different considerations apply to evidence recovered by a measure found to violate Article 3[prohibiting torture and other ill-treatment]. An issue may arise under Article 6 § 1 [right to a fair and public hearing] in respect of evidence obtained in violation of Article 3 of the Convention, even if the admission of such evidence was not decisive in securing the conviction. The use of evidence obtained in violation of Article 3 in criminal proceedings raises serious issues as to the fairness of such proceedings. ‘38 48. In A and Others, Lord Bingham remarked on the rationale of the exclusionary rule (having cited Burgers and Danelius’ commentary on Article 15): ‘It seems indeed very likely that the unreliability of a statement or confession procured by torture and a desire to discourage torture by devaluing its product are two strong reasons why the rule was adopted. But it also seems likely that the article reflects the wider principle expressed in article 69(7) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which has its counterpart in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda: “Evidence obtained by means of a violation of this Statute or internationally recognized human rights shall not be admissible if: (a) the violation casts substantial doubt on the reliability of the evidence; or (b) the admission of the evidence would be antithetical to and would seriously damage the integrity of the proceedings.’ 39 [emphasis added] F. Admitting the Content of Torture “Confessions” Would Be Wholly Inconsistent not only with the Express Terms, but also the Object and Purpose, of the Convention 49. The prohibition in Article 15 on using the content of torture “confessions” is irrespective of their probative value. Instead, it rests on the international community’s fundamental rejection of torture and refusal to provide it any legitimacy. It goes to the heart of the integrity of the court itself. 37 Inter-Amm Comm. of HR, Manuel Manríquez v. México, Case 11.509, Report No. 2/99, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.95 Doc. 7 rev. at 663 (1998), (23 Feb. 1999), para. 85. 38 Harutyunyan v. Armenia, App. No. 36549/03, 28 June 2007, para. 63. See also Jalloh v. Germany (applic. no. 54810/00), Grand Chamber Judgment of 11 July 2006, para. 105. 39 A and Others, para. 39. Amicus Curie Application (AI, ICJ, REDRESS) 13/15