01200842 E350/8 trial rights of the Accused. 124 However, these rules do not automatically require the exclusion of evidence obtained by illegal means and several international tribunals have ruled that in deciding on the admission of such evidence, the correct balance must be maintained between the fundamental rights of the accused and the essential interests of the international community in the prosecution of persons charged with serious violations of international humanitarian law. 125 61. This review of relevant international instruments and jurisprudence does not demonstrate the existence of a universally-accepted international standard which would extend the exclusion of torture-tainted evidence to all evidence obtained through cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. 126 Thus, the Chamber does not consider that Article 15 of the CAT extends to evidence obtained by ill-treatment. 62. The Chamber nonetheless considers that Article 321 of the CCCP is complementary to Article 15 of the CAT. While the former only has application at the judgement phase, preventing any reliance on coerced statements, the latter prohibits the invocation of torturetainted evidence at all stages of the proceedings. The International Criminal Court, The Making of the Rome Statute, The Hague, Kluwer Law international, 1999, p. 914, para. 76 ("some forms of illegality or violations of human rights create the danger that the evidence, such as confession [sic] obtained from a person during interrogation, may not be truthful or reliable as it may have been proffered as a result of the duress arising from the circumstances of the violation.") 124 The ad hoc tribunals have applied the limitations in Rule 95 where it is alleged that the accused's right to counsel was denied, where the accused was not properly advised of his rights, and where a witness was contacted in violation of a protective order. See e.g., Prosecutor v. Deiaiic et. ai., ICTY Trial Chamber (IT-9621-T), Decision on Zdravko Mucic's Motion for the Exclusion of Evidence, 2 September 1997; Prosecutor v Mrskic et ai, ICTY Trial Chamber (IT-95-13I1-T), Decision Concerning the Use of Statements Given by the Accused, 9 October 2006; Prosecutor v Karemera et ai., ICTR Trial Chamber (ICTR-98-44-T), Decision on the Prosecution Motion for Admission into Evidence of Post-Arrest Interviews with Joseph Nzirorera and Mathieu Ngirumpatse, 2 November 2007, para. 32; Prosecutor v Bagosora et ai., (ICTR-98-41-T), Decision on the Prosecutor's Motion for the Admission of Certain Materials Under Rule 89(C), 14 October 2004, para. 21; Prosecutor v Zigiranyirazo, (ICTR-2001-73-T), Decision on the Voir Dire Hearing of the Accused's Curriculum Vitae, 29 November 2006, para. 13; Prosecutor v Prlic et ai., ICTY Trial Chamber (IT-04-74-T), Decision on the Admission into Evidence ofSlobodan Praljak's Evidence in the Case of Nate lie and Martinovic, 5 September 2007, paras 22-23; Prosecutor v Nyiramasuhuko et ai., ICTR Trial Chamber (ICTR-98-42-T), Decision on Kanyabashi's Oral Motion to Cross Examine Ntahobali Using Ntahobali's Statements to Prosecution Investigators in July 1997, 15 May 2006, paras 80-82; Prosecutor v Kajeiije/i, ICTR Trial Chamber (ICTR-9844A-T), Decision on Kajelijeli's Motion to Hold Members of the Office of the Prosecutor in Contempt of the Tribunal (Rule 77(C)), 15 November 2002, para. 14. 125 Prosecutor v. Lubanga, paras 69, 84, 86, 89-90; See aiso, Prosecutor v. Brcijanin, ICTY Trial Chamber (IT99-36), Decision on the Defence "Objection to Intercept Evidence", 3 October 2003, paras 61-62 (In determining whether the admission of evidence will seriously damage the integrity of the proceedings, "the correct balance must, therefore, be maintained between the fundamental rights of the accused and the essential interests of the international community in the prosecution of persons charged with serious violations of international humanitarian law."). 126 The Chamber notes that the practical effect of this ruling may not be significant in this case due to the relevant standard of proof. If there is a real risk of torture, there is also likely a real risk of ill-treatment. In addition, most, if not all, of the evidence in question here was obtained at security centres. The parties have not identified any evidence which may have been obtained by ill-treatment falling short of torture. Decision on Evidence Obtained through Torture, Public, 5 February 2016 24