A/HRC/25/60 incapable of mitigating the responsibility of the State that relies on information so obtained. 80. Executive agencies should be governed by detailed guidelines, which reflect all the international standards required by the prohibition of torture and other illtreatment, to ensure that they avoid complicity in such acts. 81. To ensure accountability in intelligence cooperation, truly independent intelligence review and oversight mechanisms should be established and enhanced. As a starting point for further development, the Special Rapporteur commends the guidelines proposed by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism in his report in 2010 on a compilation of good practices on legal and institutional frameworks and measures that ensure respect for human rights by intelligence agencies while countering terrorism, including on their oversight practices (A/HRC/14/46, principles 31–35). B. Recommendations 82. Regarding the use of information tainted by torture in any proceedings, all States should: (a) Reaffirm the absolute and non-derogable nature of the exclusionary rule; (b) Review criminal investigation practices with a view to promoting professional standards and eliminating confessions as the primary or sole evidence necessary for a prosecution; (c) Ensure that legislation concerning evidence presented in any proceedings is brought into line with the exclusionary rule, in order to exclude explicitly and declare inadmissible any evidence or extrajudicial statement obtained under torture or other ill-treatment at any stage of any proceedings, irrespective of the classification of that treatment as torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; (d) Ensure that the exercise of discretion by national authorities in circumstances where torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is alleged is prohibited; (e) Ensure that the use of real or other evidence obtained as an indirect result of acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is prohibited and excluded from any proceedings; (f) Clarify the procedural rules on admissibility, including the burden of proof applied by courts, by ensuring that the burden of proof is shifted to the State when the appellant advances a plausible reason as to why evidence may have been procured by torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; and that the court enquires as to whether there is a real risk that the evidence has been obtained by torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and if there is, that the evidence is not admitted; (g) Ensure that, in order to show that evidence has not been obtained by torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, a court must rely on evidence other than the testimony of the investigating officer and further enhance the admissibility of independent and impartial medical evidence; 19