A/HRC/37/27 4. The Director raised concerns about the tendency to justify torture in the context of the fight against terrorism or violent extremism. She underlined that committing acts of torture was wrong, ineffective and counterproductive. Using torture did not help to uphold security, but instead undermined such efforts and destroyed public trust, which was a key element in effective law enforcement. She underscored that the long-term effective prevention of torture began with the ability to identify and support victims of torture. Highlighting the work of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture (which facilitated knowledge-sharing in that area and assisted victims in claiming their right to redress, including the right to truth), she observed that anti-torture programmes should address all components of the anti-torture “cycle”, from legislative reform and preventive programmes to the provision of assistance to victims. She emphasized that a lack of accountability for acts of torture and ill-treatment resulted in impunity and repetition of such acts. As such, holding to account those responsible for torture was an indispensable tool in prevention. A. Legal and judicial safeguards for the prevention of torture 5. Barbara Bernath, Chief of Operations of the Association for the Prevention of Torture moderated the first session. The panellists were: the Special Rapporteur on torture; José Antonio Dias Toffoli, Vice-President of the Supreme Federal Court of Brazil; and Silvana Donoso, Judge at the Court of Appeals of Valparaiso, Chile. In her introductory remarks, Ms. Bernath referred to research commissioned by the Association for the Prevention of Torture that had found that the implementation of safeguards against torture in police custody and pretrial detention was one of the most effective means of reducing torture.2 6. The Special Rapporteur remarked that the effective implementation of safeguards to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment during police custody and pretrial detention had the greatest impact on reducing and preventing torture. He outlined a wide range of measures that were necessary in order to entrench such safeguards. All persons deprived of their liberty must have access to all procedural safeguards, from the first hours of custody and for its duration, and incommunicado detention was impermissible. Immediate and systematic registration of all persons deprived of their liberty, including, in the case of extraterritorial or border-area custody, of undocumented migrants, must be in place in all cases. Any person detained must be informed without delay of the reasons for their detention and the charges made against them. Any person charged with an offence must be promptly brought before a judge and given access to legal counsel immediately upon arrest and before undergoing questioning by the authorities. Other effective safeguards included: notifying family members that a relative was being held in police custody or pretrial detention and allowing them to visit; and giving a detainee access to a medical doctor immediately upon arrest and transfer to each new detention facility. Medical doctors must be independent, impartial and receive appropriate training in examining and documenting torture and ill-treatment based on the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Istanbul Prorotocol). An effective technological safeguard was the systematic audiovisual recording of police interrogations. However, recordings should not be considered irrefutable evidence of the absence of torture as pressure could be put on detainees off the record to make them confess, seemingly voluntarily, on the record. Furthermore, courts should never admit confessions that were uncorroborated by other evidence or that had been withdrawn. Police should move from confession-driven interrogation techniques towards non-coercive interviewing practices, based on human rights law, transparency and accountability. The exclusionary rule, which excluded from legal proceedings any statements (whether confessions or witness testimony) that had been obtained through torture, was an important procedural safeguard and a nonderogable norm of customary international law. 2 4 See http://apt.ch/en/events/does-torture-prevention-work-panel-discussion-and-book-launch-london.