A/HRC/25/60 43. International law intends to bar not only actual breaches but also potential breaches of the prohibition against torture and any cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and obliges States to put in place all those measures that may pre-empt the perpetration of torture.34 44. The obligation to take effective preventive measures transcends the items enumerated specifically in the Convention. Article 2, paragraph 1, provides authority to build upon subsequent articles (articles 3 to 15 of the Convention), referring to specific measures known to prevent acts of torture and other ill-treatment and to expand the scope of measures required for such prevention. Thus, States must take effective preventive measures, including by good-faith interpretation of the existing provisions, to eradicate torture and ill-treatment.35 45. In this sense, the customary non-refoulement provision, as contained in article 3 of the Convention, is one obligation under the overarching aim of preventing torture and other ill-treatment. It contains the obligation of States not to return a person if there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture, even outside the territory and control of a State. In the case of Soering v. the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that even though the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms does not contain a specific non-refoulement provision prohibiting the extradition of a person to another State where he would be subject, or be likely to be subjected, to torture or other illtreatment, such obligation was already inherent in the general terms of the prohibition against torture by referring to the recognition of its absolute nature and its fundamental value for democratic societies. 46. The interpretation and extension of the prohibition against torture under the nonrefoulement provision, provides important guidance regarding the rules applicable to executive actions that purposely and objectively promote torture by taking advantage of its results. The non-refoulement obligation is a specific manifestation of a more general principle that States must ensure that their actions do not lead to a risk of torture anywhere in the world. There is a clear negative obligation not to contribute to a risk of torture. 47. As mentioned earlier in this report, the exclusionary rule provides for an absolute prohibition in international law on the use of evidence obtained by torture or ill-treatment in any proceedings. It is considered a preventive measure, reasonably required to give effect to the absolute prohibition of torture and ill-treatment and the obligation to prevent and discourage such acts, alongside other provisions of the Convention and customary law. On the basis of the purpose and object of the exclusionary rule and in the general prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment, the exclusionary rule must be interpreted to apply much more widely, to include the activities of executive actors.36 Information obtained by torture or other ill-treatment, even when not intended to be used in formal proceedings, must always be treated in the same way that a court would treat evidence obtained by illegal means and thus be disregarded.37 Articles 2 and 16 of the Convention require States to prevent torture and ill-treatment by taking appropriate preventive measures. A failure to do so, by permitting acts of torture, or failing to take appropriate measures, or to exercise due diligence, to prevent, investigate or punish acts of torture gives rise to a violation. This also applies to the judiciary in its role as custodian of the legality of State action. The acceptance 34 35 36 37 12 International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, case No. IT-95-17/T10, judgement of 10 December 1998, para.148 and A/59/324, para. 27. Committee against Torture, general comment No.2, para. 25. See A/ HRC/16/52, paras. 53-57 and A/67/396, paras. 48-49. See e.g. Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, “Human rights in counter-terrorism investigations: a practical manual for law enforcement officers” (Warsaw, 2013), p. 28.