67 162. Taking into account the foregoing elements, the Court considers that the evidence is not sufficient to conclude that the actions taken by the court-appointed defense counsels in the proceedings of May 4, 6 and 7, 1999 had constituted per se a violation of the right to defense. 2. Exclusion of the evidence obtained under duress 163. The Commission and the representatives indicated that “when” the victims “made their self-incriminating statements in the presence of the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Judge of the Mina Judicial District[,] they were still in the grips of fear, anguish and inferiority, since it had been only a few days since their detention and physical mistreatment.” The Commission considered that “because the State did not conduct a serious, exhaustive and impartial investigation into the allegations of torture,” any possible flaws in the confessions given […] “could not be corrected; the State, therefore, could not use those statements as evidence.” In addition, the Commission and the representatives pointed out that the practice of torture has been encouraged by the legal validity granted to the first statement made by the accused, which is rendered before the Public Prosecutor’s Office and not before a court, to which the Mexican courts conferred value. Moreover, the representatives pointed out that “the confessions of the victims should have been excluded from the criminal proceeding” and that the court’s ratification of the statements should not have been taken into account, given that Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel “were under the effects of torture and threats and that they did not understand the meaning or scope of said ratification.” 164. The State indicated that the condemnatory judgment “was not exclusively based on the confessions made by the convicted.” It indicated that the trial judge “heard, valued and corroborated the totality of the evidence and records of the case file” and that if it were to be proven that the judgment "against the […] victims was based on the confession obtained under the circumstances described, the consequence would be for the competent authority to minimize the probative value and to solve according to the rest of the body of evidence and pursuant to law and to determine, then, if such violation prevented the accused from having a defense and went beyond the result of the ruling.” 165. In this respect, the Court notes that the rule of the exclusion from judicial proceeding of evidence obtained under torture or cruel or inhumane treatment (hereinafter “exclusionary rule”) has been acknowledged by several international treaties257 and international bodies for the protection of human rights, insofar as they have considered that the rule of exclusion is inherent to the prohibition of such acts.258 In this respect, the Court considers that this rule is absolute and nonderogable.259 257 Article 15 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment provides that “[E]ach State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.” Moreover, article 10 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture indicates that “[N]o statement that is verified as having been obtained through torture shall be admissible as evidence in a legal proceeding, except in a legal action taken against a person or persons accused of having elicited it through acts of torture, and only as evidence that the accused obtained such statement by such means.” 258 In this respect, the Committee against Torture has pointed out that "he obligations in articles 2 (whereby “no exceptional circumstances whatsoever may be invoked as a justification of torture”) 15 (prohibiting confessions extorted by torture being admitted in evidence, except against the torturer), and 16 (prohibiting cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) must be observed in all circumstance.”.” Cf. United Nations. Committee against Torture. General Comment N° 2, ‘Implementation of article 2 by States Parties’ of January 24, 2008 (CAT/C/GC/2) para. 6. Furthermore,