A/HRC/25/60 derogable under any circumstances, including in respect of national security.6 Further, since the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment is part of customary international law, it follows that the exclusionary rule, as a component of that prohibition, must also apply to States that are not party to the Convention against Torture.7 In the aftermath of the attacks of 11 September 2001, the Committee against Torture specified that the obligations in article 2, paragraph 2, of the Convention, whereby “‘no exceptional circumstances whatsoever…may be invoked as a justification of torture’”; the exclusionary rule contained in article 15; and the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in article 16 are three provisions of the Convention that “‘must be observed in all circumstances’”.8 1. Scope and implementation of the exclusionary rule in any proceedings 23. Some progress has been made. Confessions, once considered the “queen of evidence”, now require corroboration in most countries. Extrajudicial confessions are not generally considered as full evidence or given weight as presumptive or even circumstantial evidence. However, the practices in a number of countries show that forced confessions are still deemed admissible and that judges and prosecutors fail to investigate promptly and impartially allegations of torture or other ill-treatment. 24. In some States, due to a lack of capacity and expertise in investigating crimes, extracting confessions through ill-treatment or torture is still seen as the most efficient or only way to secure evidence and conviction. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur draws attention to the international standards intended to provide assistance to national law enforcement, including the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. To ensure compliance with international standards, all applicable procedures should be reviewed regularly. During his country visits, the Special Rapporteur has observed that some States are unable to provide information on cases where evidence has been excluded because it was either found to have been obtained under torture, or the national provisions did not accurately reflect the exclusionary rule by, for example, not defining the measures to be taken by courts if evidence appears to have been obtained through torture or other ill-treatment, or by not putting the mechanisms in place by which evidence may be declared inadmissible. The legislation of some countries does meet the standards set by the exclusionary rule, but that is not true of all countries. 25. In jurisdictions where independent medical examinations must be authorized by investigators, prosecutors or penitentiary authorities, those authorities have ample opportunity to delay authorization, so that any injuries deriving from torture have healed by the time such an examination is conducted. Additionally, such medical and forensic reports are often of such poor quality that they provide little assistance to judges or prosecutors when deciding whether to exclude statements. Some judges are willing to admit confessions without attempting to corroborate the confession with other evidence, even if the person recants before the judge and claims to have been tortured. In addition, cases submitted to the courts are sometimes based solely on confessions by the accused and lack any material evidence, or else judges establish prerequisites, such as visible or recognizable marks, for ruling that evidence obtained under torture or other ill-treatment is invalid. The Committee 6 7 8 6 See e.g. the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 4, para. 2; the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, article 2, para. 2; and A/63/223, para. 34. See General Assembly resolutions 67/161, para.16, and. 3452 (XXX), art. 12, and Matt Pollard, “Rotten fruit: State solicitation, acceptance and the use of information obtained through torture by another State”, Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, vol.23, No. 3 (2005). Committee against Torture, general comment No. 2 (2007) on the implementation of article 2 by States parties, para. 6.