The use of evidence procured by torture is prohibited pursuant to several international agreements to which Belgium is a party. The agreements seek to remove incentive for national investigating authorities to engage in torture, and to uphold the rights of the accused and the integrity of the legal procedure. The European Court of Human Rights decided that an accused only has to prove a "real risk" that evidence has been obtained under torture or inhuman treatment. A higher standard, such as Belgian courts and the UK, intervening in the case, require with the prove of torture "beyond reasonable doubt," violates the right to a fair trial enshrined in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The intervention made by the ECCHR and REDRESS addresses the definition, aim and scope of the prohibition, the burden of proof, and the influence of the prohibition on the proceedings. It is contended that a real risk of torture has to be sufficient to trigger the prohibition, and that the accused cannot duly be expected to procure evidence, given the common involvement of secrecy issues and a lack of access to information regarding the acts of states and repressive regimes. The human rights court followed this argumentation.
