A/HRC/25/60 contradiction to the object and purpose of the absolute prohibition of such acts, including during interrogation. There is a clear affirmative obligation to prevent torture and ill-treatment that includes actions the State takes in its own jurisdiction to prevent torture or other ill-treatment in another jurisdiction. Thus, an interpretation focused on the objective of the norm demands that the collection, sharing and receiving of tainted information be banned, because otherwise the purpose of preventing and discouraging torture and other ill-treatment is negated. It is not sufficient to ensure that the judicial process is free from the taint of torture; torture must not be acquiesced in, encouraged or condoned in any manifestations of public power, whether executive or judicial. 74. The standards of the exclusionary rule should therefore be interpreted in good faith and applied by way of analogy to the collection, sharing and receiving of information tainted by torture, including information obtained by other ill-treatment, even if not used in “proceedings” as narrowly defined. 75. Governments cannot condemn the evil of torture and other ill-treatment at the international level while condoning it at the national level. It is hypocritical of States to condemn torture committed by others while accepting its products. Any use of information tainted by torture, even if the torture has been committed by agents of another State, is an act of acquiescence in torture that compromises the responsibility of the State that uses those products and leads to individual and State complicity in acts of torture. Complicity in torture is a direct breach of international human rights obligations under the Convention, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other treaties concerning human rights and international humanitarian law, as well as under customary international law and according to the general principles of the responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts. 76. The collection, sharing and receiving of information from States where there is a real risk of torture or other ill-treatment suffice to demonstrate State responsibility through complicity. States have to assess the situation and the possible real risk of acts of torture or other ill-treatment and must refrain from “automatic reliance” on information from the intelligence services of other countries, which is incompatible with the object and purpose of the absolute prohibition of torture and other illtreatment and the obligation to prevent and discourage torture and other illtreatment.51 77. This applies in particular to situations of systematic torture where the State cannot avoid knowledge or imputed knowledge of the real risk of such acts, and other situations where it cannot be established that there is no such risk. In cases of systematic torture, the receiving State must presume that the information is a product of torture and therefore refrain from collecting, sharing or receiving such tainted information. Non-compliance with those principles makes the State complicit in acts of torture or other ill-treatment and responsible for an internationally wrongful act. 78. Information tainted by torture, even when not intended to be used in court proceedings, must therefore be treated in the same way that a court would treat evidence obtained by torture or other ill-treatment. The Special Rapporteur reiterates that every use of such information is an encouragement of torture or ill-treatment after the fact and therefore establishes complicity in such acts and a failure to prevent the next round of torture or other ill-treatment. 79. States cannot resort to diplomatic assurances as a safeguard against torture or other ill-treatment, where there is a real risk of such acts. Such assurances are 51 18 See e.g. CAT/C/DEU/CO/5, para. 31 and CAT/C/DEU/QPR/6, para. 38.