134. The Complainants submit that, even at the beginning of the trial, all three victims were denied the opportunity to consult with counsel privately, in order to prepare their defence. They also submit that, the lawyer client communication took place through bars of the court room, in the presence of, and within earshot security officials. It is submitted that the complete denial of access to counsel before their appearance in court and the restrictive access thereafter, violated the right to counsel and the right to a defence under Article 7(1) (c).65 135. With regards to the issue of the State Security Emergency Court‟s reliance on the “confessions” of the three Victims, the Complainants submit that “any confession or other evidence obtained by any form of coercion or force may not be admitted as evidence or considered as probative of any fact at trial or in sentencing.”66 They argue that “any confession or admission obtained during incommunicado detention shall be considered to have been obtained by coercion.”67 They further argue that any evidence and/or confessions obtained through torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment cannot be used in judicial proceedings except for the purpose of prosecuting the act of torture or ill-treatment itself.68 136. Relying on decisions from European Court of Human Rights69, the Complainants aver that the use of evidence obtained under torture or illtreatment in criminal proceedings raises serious issues as to the fairness of such proceedings. They contend that any incriminating evidence – whether in the form of a confession or real evidence – obtained as a result of acts of 65 See Malawi African Association v. Mauritania, para 96. 66 Principles and Guidelines on Fair Trial, Section N (6)(d)(1). 67 Id, Sec N (6) (d) (1). 68 They argue that an express prohibition of reliance on evidence obtained by torture is contained in Art. 10 of the InterAmerican Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture of 9 December 1985, OAS Treaty Series No. 67; Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: the Philippines, UN doc. CCPR/CO/79/PHL (2003), para. 12 69 Jalloh v. Germany (App. No. 54810/00), ECtHR, judgment of 11 July 2006 [GC], paras 99 and 104- 106; Harutyunyan v. Armenia (Appl. No. 36549/03), ECtHR, judgment of 7 June 2007, at para. 63; Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Philippines, UN doc. CCPR/CO/79/PHL (2003), para. 12. 38