002/19-09-2007-ECCC-OCIJ-PTC 50. The UN Committee Against Torture has explicitly founded the Article 15 exclusionary rule on the general prohibition on torture. In P.E. v. France, the Committee observed that: …the generality of the provisions of Article 15 derive from the absolute nature of the prohibition of torture and imply, consequently, an obligation for each State party to ascertain whether or not statements constituting part of the evidence of a procedure for which is it is competent have been made as a result of torture.40 51. In Harutyunyan v. Armenia, the European Court of Human Rights similarly stated: ‘Incriminating evidence – whether in the form of a confession or real evidence – obtained as a result of acts of violence or brutality or other forms of treatment which can be characterised as torture should never be relied on as proof of the victim’s guilt, irrespective of its probative value. Any other conclusion would only serve to legitimate indirectly the sort of morally reprehensible conduct which the authors of Article 3 of the Convention sought to proscribe or, in other words, to “afford brutality the cloak of law.’41 [emphasis added] 52. While the European Court was referring to reliance on “evidence” obtained by torture against the torture victim, this concern about “affording brutality the cloak of law” no doubt applies in respect of any purpose for which reliance upon information obtained by torture is sought in judicial or other proceedings. Unlike the use of a statement as evidence that it was made, such reliance is never justified. 53. In A and Others, Lord Bingham (for the minority) clarified: ‘It trivialises the issue before the House to treat it as an argument about the law of evidence. The issue is one of constitutional principle, whether evidence obtained by torturing another human being may lawfully be admitted against a party to proceedings in a British court, irrespective of where, or by whom, or on whose authority the torture was inflicted. To that question I would give a very clear negative answer’.42 54. In the same case, Lord Hope (for the majority) forcefully made the same point: ‘The use of such evidence [obtained by torture] is excluded not on grounds of its unreliability – if that was the only objection to it, it would go to its weight, not to its 40 UN Comm. Against Torture, 193/2001, P.E. v. France, Views adopted 21 Nov. 2002, CAT/C/29/D/193/2001, 19 Dec. 2002, para. 6.3. 41 Harutyunyan v. Armenia, App. No. 36549/03, Judgement of 28 June 2007, para. 63. See similarly Jalloh v. Germany (application no. 54810/00), Grand Chamber Judgment of 11 July 2006, para. 105. 42 A and Others, para. 51. Amicus Curie Application (AI, ICJ, REDRESS) 14/15