122. For its part, the Commission alleged that “there are several irregularities [in the report of the commission of the General Inspectorate of the Navy], including the use of torture and coercion against various persons who testified against Mr. Grijalva [, which] was also not analyzed by the judge. Despite this […] full validity was given to these statements and no action was taken in light of the standards related to the exclusionary rule.” The Commission also emphasized that “the conviction was based exclusively on the [aforementioned report], which was taken up by the prosecutor in the case, even though […] one of its authors pointed out that the facts were not proven.” The foregoing was contradicted by the State, which specifically denied that the conviction was based exclusively on the report of the commission of the General Inspectorate of the Navy. 123. In view of these arguments, the Court must now determine whether the statements against Mr. Grijalva, which were taken into account in the reports of SERINT and later confirmed by the investigating commission of the General Inspectorate of the Navy, were taken into consideration in the conviction, and whether they constitute a violation of the presumption of innocence, the right to defense or the right to a fair trial. 124. For the Court, accepting or granting probative value to statements or confessions obtained by coercion, which affect the coerced person or a third party, constitutes a violation of the right to a fair trial. Similarly, the absolute nature of the exclusionary rule is reflected in the prohibition against granting probative value not only to evidence obtained directly by coercion, but also to evidence derived from such action.109 Consequently, the Court considers that excluding evidence gathered or derived from information obtained by coercion adequately guarantees the right to a fair trial.110 125. In addition, the Court recalls that the rule of excluding all evidence obtained under torture or through cruel or inhumane treatment has been recognized by several international treaties and international bodies for the protection of human rights, which consider that the exclusionary rule is intrinsic to the prohibition of such acts. Therefore, the Court considers that this rule is absolute and irrevocable.111 Accordingly, the Court has held that the annulment of procedural documents resulting from torture or cruel treatment is an effective measure to halt the consequences of a violation of judicial guarantees. The Court also deems it necessary to emphasize that the rule of exclusion does not apply solely to cases where acts of torture or cruel treatment have been committed.112 126. According to the CEV report entitled “Without Truth there is no Justice”, in August 1991, two sergeants informed Mr. Grijalva of the possible responsibility of Captain FM and other members of the Navy for the illegal and arbitrary detentions, torture and murders of three persons. The CEV indicated that, in December 1991, Mr. Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of. Series C No. 220, para. 167, and Case of Montesinos Mejía v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 198. 110 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 167. 111 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 165, and Case of Montesinos Mejía v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 196. 112 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 166, and Case of Montesinos Mejía v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 197. 109 32