01200841 E350/8 further still and specifically provides that: "A confession of guilt by the accused shall be valid only ifit is made without coercion of any kind.,,118 59. Nonetheless, jurisprudence from human rights courts is not unanimous as to whether evidence obtained through ill-treatment should be, as a general rule, excluded from all proceedings. The IACtHR has held that whenever it is proven that any form of coercion has interfered with the spontaneous expression of a person's will, this necessarily requires the exclusion of that evidence from the judicial proceeding. The Court stressed that statements obtained under coercion are seldom truthful, because the person tries to say whatever is necessary to make the cruel treatment or torture stop. I 19 Whereas the ECtHR has held that the admission of evidence obtained through ill-treatment but falling short of torture, violates fair trial rights only if it has been shown that the admission of evidence obtained through illtreatment had an impact on the Accused's conviction or sentence. 120 60. In a related body of jurisprudence, international criminal tribunals since Nuremberg have recognised that evidence obtained through illegal means should be excluded. 121 The ICC and ad hoc Tribunals have specific rules which prohibit the admission of evidence obtained by methods which cast doubt on its reliability or where its admission would seriously damage the integrity of the proceedings. 122 These rules may apply to evidence obtained through torture and ill-treatment l23 but have also been applied as a procedural safeguard to protect the fair ACHR, Article 8(3). Cf Cabrera Garcia and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, paras 165-167; See also, Garcia Cruz and Sanchez Silvestre v. Mexico, Judgement, 26 November 2013, para 58. 120 Gafgen v. Germany, para. 178 ("[T]he Court considers that both a criminal trial's fairness and the effective protection of the absolute prohibition under Article 3 [torture and ill-treatment] in that context are only at stake if it has been shown that the breach of Article 3 had a bearing on the outcome of the proceedings against the defendant, that is, had an impact on his or her conviction or sentence."); El Haski v. Belgium, para. 85 ("the admission of such evidence obtained as a result of an act qualified as inhuman treatment in breach of Article 3, but falling short of torture, will only breach Article 6 [fair trial], however, if it has been shown that the breach of Article 3 had a bearing on the outcome of the proceedings against the defendant, that is, had an impact on his or her conviction or sentence.") 121 USA v. Greifelt et al. (RuSHA Case), Judgement of 10 March 1948, reprinted in Trials of War Criminal Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law No. 10, Vol. V, p. 88 ("During the course of the trial several witnesses, including some defendants who made affidavits that were offered as evidence by the prosecution, testified that they were threatened, and that duress of a very improper nature was practiced by an interrogator. The affidavits referred to were excluded from the evidence and have not been considered by the Tribunal.") 122 ICC Statute, Article 69(7) ("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"); ICTY RPE 95 ("No evidence shall be admissible if obtained by methods which cast substantial doubt on its reliability or if its admission is antithetical to, and would seriously damage, the integrity of the proceedings"); ICTR RPE 95 (same). 123 Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC Pre-Trial Chamber (ICC-01-04-01l06), Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, 29 January 2007 ("Prosecutor v. Lubanga"), para. 85, quoting H-J Behrens, "The Trial Proceedings" in 118 119 Decision on Evidence Obtained through Torture, Public, 5 February 2016 23