Chapter 7 • The Right to a Fair Trial: Part II – From Trial to Final Judgement The Committee has further held that the guarantee “that no one shall be ‘compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt’, must be understood in terms of the absence of any direct or indirect physical or psychological pressure from the investigating authorities on the accused, with a view to obtaining a confession of guilt”.145 The Committee has thus found violations of article 14(3)(g) in cases where the persons accused have been compelled to sign statements incriminating themselves,146 or where attempts have been made – including through recourse to torture or duress – to compel them to do so.147 However, where various issues relating to alleged self-incrimination under duress have not been brought to the attention of the trial judge either by the author himself or his privately retained lawyer, the Committee has concluded that the State party could not be held responsible under article 14(1) [sic] for the purportedly negative outcome of this failure.148 ***** With regard to article 8(3) of the American Convention on Human Rights, the American Court of Human Rights found in the case of Castillo Petrzzi et al. that it had not been proven that this provision had been violated. Although it was clear that the accused “were urged to tell the truth” during the preliminary testimony before the Judge of the Special Military Court of Inquiry, nothing in the record suggested “that any punishment or other adverse legal consequence was threatened if they did not tell the truth”; nor was there “any evidence to suggest that the accused were required to testify under oath or to swear to tell the truth, either of which would have violated their right to choose between testifying and not testifying”.149 3.7.1 Prohibition on the use of evidence obtained through unlawful means/treatment In Chapter 6 reference was made to Guideline 16 of the Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, according to which prosecutors shall refuse to use evidence which they “know or believe on reasonable grounds” to have been “obtained through recourse to unlawful methods, which constitute a grave violation of the suspect’s human rights”, in particular when such methods have involved recourse to torture or other human rights abuses. 145 Communication No. 330/1988, A. Berry v. Jamaica (Views adopted on 7 April 1994), in UN doc. GAOR, A/49/40 (vol. II), p. 28, para. 11.7; emphasis added. 146 Communication No. R.12/52, S. R. López Burgos v. Uruguay (Views adopted on 29 July 1981), in UN doc. GAOR, A/36/40, p. 183, para. 13; and Communication No. R.18/73, M. A. Teti Izquierdo v. Uruguay (Views adopted on 1 April 1982), in UN doc. GAOR, p. 186, para. 9. 147 Communication No. 74/1980, M. A. Estrella v. Uruguay (Views adopted on 29 March 1983), in UN doc. GAOR, A/38/40, p. 159, para. 10; and Communication No. 328/1988, R. Z. Blanco v. Nicaragua (Views adopted on 20 July 1994), in UN doc. GAOR, A/49/40 (vol. II), p. 18, para. 10.4. 148 Communication No. 330/1988, A. Berry v. Jamaica (Views adopted on 7 April 1994), in UN doc. GAOR, A/49/40 (vol. II), p. 27, para. 11.3. 149 I-A Court HR, Castillo Petruzzi et al. case v. Peru, judgment of May 30, 1999, Series C, No. 52, p. 210, paras. 167-168. Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers 283