A/HRC/25/60 purpose, to the extent that they accord with their international legal obligations.47 However, some aspects of published guidelines fall short of the standards required by the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment. If a real risk of torture or ill-treatment is detected, a State must not proceed to work with a foreign agency. Any discretion afforded in the guidelines to executive actors to proceed to work with an agency, despite a real risk of the information they receive being tainted by torture or ill-treatment, is incompatible with the obligation of the State as to the prohibition of torture. In addition, no distinction between torture and other ill-treatment should be made. Likewise, the excuse of exceptional circumstances contained in some national guidelines is inconsistent with the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment.48 5. Effective oversight 61. While normative guidelines must be developed and clarified where they exist, additional safeguards may be taken into consideration to encourage compliance with international law when using information that may have been obtained by torture or other ill-treatment. 62. There is currently a lack of comprehensive or effective independent oversight of the activities of the security and intelligence services. The structure of oversight mechanisms to guarantee that information tainted by torture or other ill-treatment will not be used is of crucial importance, particularly in relation to cooperation between agencies. Any action by the intelligence services should be governed by law, which in turn should be in conformity with international law and standards. IV. Conclusions and recommendations A. Conclusions 1. Judicial branch 63. The exclusionary rule is fundamental for upholding the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment by providing a disincentive to use such acts. The rule forms a part of the general and absolute prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment. As such, the exclusionary rule is not derogable under any circumstances and also applies to States which are not party to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 64. The inadmissibility of unlawfully obtained confessions and other tainted evidence is not only one of the essential means of preventing torture and other illtreatment, but is also crucial to guarantees of a fair trial. The ineffectiveness of efforts to put an end to the practice of torture, or other ill-treatment, is often the result of the fact that State authorities continue to admit tainted evidence during trials. 65. The quality of medical and forensic reports needs to be improved and courts should enhance the admissibility of independent and impartial medical evidence in any proceedings, in order to investigate allegations of torture or other ill-treatment effectively. In addition, courts should never admit extrajudicial confessions that are not corroborated by other evidence, or that have been recanted. 47 48 16 See “Consolidated guidance to intelligence officers and service personnel on the detention and interviewing of detainees overseas and on the passing and receipt of intelligence relating to detainees” H.M. Government, United Kingdom (July 2010) and “Information sharing with foreign entities”, Ministerial Direction to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (2011). See e.g. CAT/C/CR/33/3, para. 4.