violence or brutality or other forms of treatment which can be characterized as torture should never be relied on as proof of the victim‟s guilt, irrespective of its probative value.”70 They further submit that the Egyptian Constitution of 1971 also stipulates that “if a confession is proved to have been made by a person under any …forms of duress or coercion, it shall be considered invalid and futile”71 137. The Complainants submit that although the Committee against Torture has affirmed in a number of cases that, “it is for the author to demonstrate that the allegations are well founded”,72 the duty is generally on the state to prove that the confessions were freely obtained.73 In support of this view the Complainants refer the Commission to observations of the Human Rights Committee that “all allegations that statements of detainees have been obtained through coercion must lead to an investigation and such statements must never be used as evidence, except as evidence of torture, and the burden of proof, in such cases, should not be borne by the alleged victim.”74 The African Commission was also referred to in the UN Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, who had noted that “[…] the applicant is only required to demonstrate that his or her allegations of torture are well founded. This means that the burden of proof to ascertain whether or not statements 70 ECHR, Harutyunyan v. Armenia (above 50), para. 63. 71 See Article 42 in fine. 72 P.E. v. France, para. 6.3; they also refer the Commission to G. K. v. Switzerland (Comm. 219/2002), Committee against Torture, decision of 7 May 2003, UN doc. CAT/C/30/D/219/2002, para. 6.11. 73 P. E. v. France, para. 6.2; see also the slightly different formulation used by the Committee in G. K. v. Switzerland “[…] the broad scope of the prohibition in article 15, proscribing function of the absolute nature of the the invocation of any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture as evidence “in any proceedings”, is a prohibition of torture and implies, consequently, an obligation for each State party to ascertain whether or not statements admitted as evidence in any proceedings for which it has jurisdiction, including extradition proceedings, have been made as a result of torture.” 74 Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: the para. 12. 39