ABSTRACT
In this chapter, the author will refer briefly to evidentiary restrictions on the use of evidence obtained by torture. He explains how the classic ticking bomb scenario was connected with the idea of judicial torture warrants. If the main objective is to diminish torture, it is paradoxical to suggest that torture is legalized. Instead, additional safeguards should be provided so that we can prevent torture from infecting the criminal justice system. The author demonstrates, first, that the ticking bomb scenario is irrelevant to the discussion about torture warrants and second, that the objective of accountability cannot legitimate judicial torture. To achieve a better understanding of the roots of the debate, it thus becomes indispensable to examine judicial torture against the background of criminal procedure evolutions after 9/11. Taking into account the interconnections between legal developments after 9/11 and the torture debate, one could say such a reverse evolution might become synonymous to a barbarization of the criminal justice system.
