hearing”.63 The Special Rapporteur on Torture64 and the UN Committee against Torture65 have also expressly applied these rationales in their work. 42. The exclusionary rule is inextricably linked to the protection against self-incrimination and the presumption of innocence included in general human rights treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.66 A trial in which evidence obtained through torture or other forms of ill-treatment is used to convict the defendant can never be considered a fair trail according to international law standards. 43. Apart from damaging the integrity of the justice system, the use of information extracted by torture in proceedings also constitutes a serious violation of the right to a fair trial. The rights of the accused to the presumption of innocence, to examine witnesses against him or her and not to be compelled to testify against himself or herself or to confess guilt are vital aspects of the right to a fair trial as provided for in Article 14(2), 14(3)(e) and 14(3)(g) of the ICCPR,67 as well as Articles 8(2), 8(2)(f), 8(2)(g) and 8(3) of the ACHR. 44. In its General Comment No. 32, the Human Rights Committee noted: “… [a]rticle 14, paragraph 3(g) guarantees the right not to be compelled to testify against oneself or to confess guilt. This safeguard must be understood in terms of the absence of any direct or indirect physical or undue psychological pressure from the investigating authorities on the accused, with a view to obtaining a confession of 68 guilt.” 45. The European Court of Human Rights has recognised the connection between coerced confessions and the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. For example in Söylemez v Turkey, the Court found unanimously that the applicant’s rights under Article 6 had been violated because the statement obtained from him under duress while in police custody had been one of the items of evidence that had formed the basis for his conviction.69 46. Murray v UK70 was the first case in which the European Court explicitly recognised that the privilege against self-incrimination should be considered integral to the fair trial rights in Article 6 of the European Convention. The judgment made reference to Article 14(3)(g) of the ICCPR71 and concluded that “[a]lthough not specifically mentioned in Article 6 (art. 6) of the Convention, there can be no doubt that the right to remain silent under police questioning and the privilege against self-incrimination are generally 63 See also Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 13 on the administration of justice, § 14 (1984). Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, UN doc.A/HRC/13/39/Add.5 (5 February 2010). 65 See, e.g., Committee against Torture, Summary record of the public part of the 289th meeting, UN doc. CAT/C/SR.289, at § 34 (26 August 1997), sub-heading “D. Subjects of Concern”. 66 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 5); International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 7); European Convention on Human Rights (Article 3); American Convention on Human Rights (Article 5); African Charter of Human and Peoples` Rights (Article 5); 1949 Geneva Conventions (common article 3); Third Geneva Convention (Article 87); Fourth Geneva Convention (Article 32). 67 Nowak, CCPR Commentary, 2nd Revised Ed 2008, at pp 341 and 344. 68 Above note 49, at § 41. 69 Söylemez v Turkey, Application 46661/99 – definitive judgment of 21 December 2006, at §§ 118-125. Judgment available (in French only) at: www.echr.coe.int. See also Sanuders v UK ; Teixeira de Castro v Portugal; Mamatkulov and Askarov v Turkey; Haratyunyan v Armenia. 70 Murray v UK, Application 41/1994, judgment of 25 January 1996. 71 Report No. 117/09 on case 12,228, decision of November 19, 2009, at § 42. 64 11