The Admission of Torture Statements into Evidence

  • Tobias ThienelEmail author
Part of the International Criminal Justice Series book series (ICJS, volume 6)


The ECCC are bound by their mandate to comply fully with domestic and international standards of the rule of law. This entails that, even though the ECCC must engage with a setting in which torture was rife, they must not admit into evidence any statements established to have been made as a result of torture. The case law of the ECCC has been mindful of this principle. In this chapter, the relevant case law of the ECCC will be presented and assessed. It will be shown that the case law of the ECCC is in line with the international discussion, but that some questions remain open to further discussion, in the ECCC as in international law more generally.


Torture Burden of proof Inhuman and degrading treatment Admissibility of evidence Necessity 


  1. Ambos K (2009) The Transnational Use of Torture Evidence. Israel Law Review 42:362−397Google Scholar
  2. Burgers J, Danelius H (1988) The United Nations Convention against Torture. Martinus Nijhoff, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  3. Dörr O (2012) Article 31. In: id., Schmalenbach K (eds), Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, A Commentary. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 521−570Google Scholar
  4. Gleß S (2007) § 136a. In: Erb V et al. (eds) Löwe-Rosenberg, Die Strafprozessordnung und das Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz, Großkommentar, 26th ed., vol. 4. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 580−631Google Scholar
  5. Grabenwarter C (2010) Androhung von Folter und faires Strafverfahren—Das (vorläufig) letzte Wort aus Straßburg. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 63:3128−3132Google Scholar
  6. Ingelse C (2001) The UN Committee against Torture, An Assessment. Kluwer Law International, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  7. Meyer F (2015) Artikel 6. In: Karpenstein U, Mayer F (eds) EMRK, 2nd ed.. C.H. Beck, Munich, pp 151−240Google Scholar
  8. Nowak M (2005) UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, CCPR Commentary, 2nd ed. N.P. Engel, KehlGoogle Scholar
  9. Nowak M, McArthur E (2008) The United Nations Convention against Torture. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Pattenden R (2006) Admissibility in Criminal Proceedings of Third Party and Real Evidence Obtained by Methods Prohibited by UNCAT. International Journal of Evidence & Proof 10:1−41Google Scholar
  11. Pollard M (2005) Rotten Fruit: State Solicitation, Acceptance, and Use of Information Obtained through Torture by Another State. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 23:349−378Google Scholar
  12. Rogall K (2010a) § 136. In: Wolter J (ed) Systematischer Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung, 4th ed., vol. II. Heymann, Cologne, pp 1277−1323Google Scholar
  13. Rogall K (2010b) § 136a. Ibid., pp. 1323–1394Google Scholar
  14. Roxin C, Schäfer G, Widmaier G (2006) Die Mühlenteichtheorie—Überlegungen zur Ambivalenz von Verwertungsverboten. Strafverteidiger 26:655−661Google Scholar
  15. Schabas W (2008) Article 6. In: Triffterer O (ed) Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2nd edn. C.H. Beck, Munich, pp 143−157Google Scholar
  16. Scharf M (2008) Tainted Provenance: When, If Ever, Should Torture Evidence Be Admissible? Washington & Lee Law Review 65:129–172Google Scholar
  17. Schmitt B (2014) § 136a. In: Meyer-Goßner L, Schmitt B (eds) Strafprozessordnung, 57th ed., C.H. Beck, Munich, pp 645−655Google Scholar
  18. Thienel T (2006a) Foreign Acts of Torture and the Admissibility of Evidence. Journal of International Criminal Justice 4:401−409Google Scholar
  19. Thienel T (2006b) The Admissibility of Evidence Obtained by Torture under International Law. European Journal of International Law 17:349−367Google Scholar
  20. Thienel T (2007) The Burden and Standard of Proof in the European Court of Human Rights. German Yearbook of International Law 50:543−588Google Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Weissleder EwerKielGermany

Personalised recommendations