evidence and confessions obtained through torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, cannot be used in judicial proceedings apart from for the purpose of prosecuting the act of torture or ill-treatment itself.130 214. The African Commission makes reference to Article 15 of the Convention Against Torture (CAT). It also notes that it has been accepted as inherent in international fair trial provisions comparable to Article 7 of the African Charter. The European Court of Human Rights for example has held that “the use of evidence obtained in violation of Article 3 [prohibition against torture or ill-treatment] in criminal proceedings raises serious issues as to the fairness of such proceedings. Incriminating evidence – whether in the form of a confession or real evidence – obtained as a result of acts of 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.���131 215. It notes that the principle can also be found in the Egyptian Constitution of 1971 which 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”132 216. Thus, where an individual alleges that a confession has been obtained by torture or ill-treatment, the burden of proof then lies in this case on the state to demonstrate that the confession in question was freely made. Although the Committee against Torture has affirmed in a number of cases 130 See above, note and accompanying text and, in general, Section III.A.2 (b)(iv). 131 ECtHR, Harutyunyan v. Armenia at para. 63. 132 See Article 42 . 66