that, “it is for the author to demonstrate that her allegations are well founded”,133 it nevertheless stressed in P. E. v. France that, “In the light of the allegations that the statements at issue, which constituted, at least in part, the basis for the additional extradition request, were obtained as a result of torture, the State party had the obligation to ascertain the veracity of such allegations.”134 217. In a similar vein, the Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, reviewing two national decisions that adopted a somewhat different approach to the standard of proof question,135 noted as follows: “[…] 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 invoked as evidence in any proceedings, including extradition proceedings, have been made as a result of torture shifts to the State.136 218. Accordingly, once a victim raises doubt as to whether particular evidence has been procured by torture or ill-treatment, the evidence in question should not be admissible, unless the State is able to show that there is no risk of torture or ill-treatment. Moreover, where a confession is obtained 133 P.E. v. France para. 6.3; see also 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. 134 P. E. v. France (above n. para. 6.2; see also the slightly different formulation used by the Committee in G. K. v. Switzerland para. 6.10: “[…] the broad scope of the prohibition in article 15, proscribing the invocation of any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture as evidence “in any proceedings”, is a function of the absolute nature of the 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.” 135 Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht (Hanseatic Court of Appeals, Criminal Division), Hamburg; decision of 14 June 2005, NJW 2005, 2326 and A and others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 71 136 Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture, and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; UN doc. A/61/259 (2006), Annex, para. 63. 67