I was thinking about ECHR application number 22978/05, but the case turns out to be significantly more subtle. The ECHR ruled the opposite of what I claimed in

I was thinking about ECHR application number 22978/05, but the case turns out to be significantly more subtle. The ECHR ruled the opposite of what I claimed in principle - so evidence gathered through a forced confession is generally inadmissible as an exceptional rule, however, in the specific case the admission of the evidence wasn't seen as rendering the trial unfair, specifically because he confessed in the trial and the admitted evidence was then used to confirm the confession. The ECHR argues the confession-at-trial "broke" the otherwise straight chain of forced confession => evidence => conviction, even though that confession was arguably predicated on the inadmissible (per ECHR) evidence admitted by the original criminal court. 6/17 judges dissented with this part of the ruling. I suspect the ECHR tried to do two things at once here: 1. establish a rule that torturing people does result in all resulting evidence to be excluded from trial, and if that leaves authorities with no evidence, then there can be no trial. Reading the ruling it clearly ECHR considers the "just prosecute the prosecutors" approach insufficient when article 3 (torture) is concerned - you can't have a trial based on torture and call it fair, basically. 2. not letting Gaefgen get off because there is no doubt at all that he murdered the child. doi 10.1017/S2071832200020290 is of interest for this. > Additionally, there was no EU equivalent to Guantanamo Bay level of toture and extrajudicial kidnapping. Why do you think Gitmo is in Cuba and not actual US territory?