recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6.”72 47. In Jalloh v Germany,73 the European Court discussed the effect of the use of evidence obtained in contravention of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the prohibition on torture and other ill-treatment) and Article 6 (the right to a fair trial).74 Concluding that the national courts did not even have discretion to exclude the evidence in question (due to specific authorisation by domestic law), the European Court found Germany had violated Article 6 of the Convention by using it to convict Mr Jalloh.75 48. In Harutyunyan v Armenia,76 the Court again found a violation of the right to a fair trial, on the basis that witness statements obtained under duress were used in criminal proceedings against the applicant.77 The applicant’s defence counsel had tried several times to have the evidence in question excluded at all levels of appeal in Armenia, to no avail.78 49. Finally in Gäfgen v Germany,79 the Court held that the principle of exclusion of evidence obtained by torture or other ill-treatment applies even when the evidence is compelling and the crime grave. Mr Gäfgen was convicted of kidnapping an 11 year old boy, blackmailing his parents, then killing him. Believing the child was still alive, the German police officer in charge of the case decided to authorise the extraordinary measure of threatening Mr Gäfgen with “subjection to extreme physical pain at the hands of a person specially trained for such purposes if he did not disclose the child’s location.”80 He was also subjected to further threats and some physical pressure (shaking and shoving). 50. The police officers involved were subsequently prosecuted for their actions and convicted of “coercion committed by an official in the course of his duties” (and in the case of the superior officer, incitement to this offence).81 51. The European Court was therefore called upon to “examine the consequences for a trial’s fairness of the admission of real evidence obtained as a result of an act qualified as inhuman treatment in breach of Article 3, but falling short of torture.”82 The Court noted that despite the law enforcement interests and life-saving motive of the police, Article 3 of the European Convention is absolute and non-derogable, and therefore cannot have other considerations weighed against its breach, as such a balancing process would “sacrifice [the values of Article 3] and discredit the administration of justice.”83 52. In the end, the court concluded that Germany had not breached Article 6, because in reality the coerced confession had not formed the basis for Mr Gäfgen’s conviction (rather, the basis was a second, voluntary and valid confession before a judge and 72 As above, § 45. Jalloh v Germany, above note 61. 74 As above, at §§ 94-123. 75 As above, at §§ 121-123. 76 Harutyunyan v Armenia, Application 36549/03, judgment of 28 September 2007. 77 As above, at §§ 58-66. 78 As above. 79 Gäfgen v Germany Application 22978/05, judgment of 1 June 2010. 80 As above, at § 15. 81 As above, at § 49. 82 As above, at § 173. 83 As above, at § 176. 73 12