The scope and objective of the exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings and in relation to acts by executive actors 2014, para. 39

Paragraph

Paragraph text: There is a tendency to draw a clear distinction between the judicial and the executive use of tainted information by some domestic courts. The latter is often allowed, the argument being, inter alia, that it does not impinge upon the liberty of individuals or that, when it does, as relating to powers of arrest, it is usually of short duration. Alternatively, that argument may refer to the "ticking-bomb scenario", i.e., that the executive agencies cannot be expected to close their eyes to information at the cost of endangering the lives of the citizens of their own countries. In other words, courts tend to endorse the use of information acquired through torture or other ill-treatment by the executive agencies in all phases of operations, except in judicial proceedings. In fact, some courts have ruled that the executive agencies have no responsibility to examine the conditions under which information was obtained, or to change their decisions accordingly. They have also ruled that it is not for the courts to discipline the executive agencies, unless by way of a criminal prosecution, and that their jurisdiction only exists to preserve the integrity of the trial process.

Body: Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

Topic(s)

Person(s) affected