THE REFRECTION OF ARTICLE 15 OF THE CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE IN THE TANZANIAN LAW OF EVIDENCE ACT [CAP, 6 R.E 2002] AND OTHER RULES OF EVIDENCE.  

  	  

 The word torture originates from Latin word ‘torquere’ meaning ‘to twist’. Also according to concise Oxford Dictionary, torture refers to the action or practice of inflicting severe pain as a punishment or a forcible means of persuasion. [Concise Oxford Dictionary 10th Ed] In law it refers to as infliction of severe bodily pain either to confess to a crime or to give more evidence in judicial proceedings. Examination by torture often called the question has been used as a judicial method to extort evidence from unwilling witnesses 

 On the other hand, confession as been defined by different authors and in case laws but in law is a statement made by a person who has committed a crime in which he or she acknowledges his or her guilty. If made in Court it is judicial, if made anywhere else it is extra judicial. An entirely voluntary that is trustworthy confession is admissible in evidence but if procured through force, inducements, threats, promises or through hope of escape or favour it is not trustworthy and is not admissible. 
 - For the Confession to be admissible the following elements must be established: - 
 - It must be made by an accused person.It must be true in the sense that it will sustain a conviction. 
 - It must be freely made to a Police Officer of or above the rank of Corporal or any authorized officer. 

  
 ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE ACT AND OTHER RULES OF EVIDENCE IN TANZANIA TO DETERMINE HOW THE SAME ARE CONSISTENT WITH ARTICLE 15 OF THE CONVENTION. 

  
 For the sake of this question, the writer is exploring from the Evidence Act, the Magistrate Court Rules of evidence and the Zanzibar Evidence Decree so as to determine the extent through which the mentioned legislations has reiterate the wording of Article 15 of the Convention. 

  The admissibility of an alleged confession is a question for the Court, what weight it is entitled to, is a question for the jury (assessors). But the general rule on admissibility of confession in evidence in Tanzania Mainland context is such that, if prosecution can proves that it was made voluntary the same is to be admitted, [S. 27 of The Evidence Act of 1967]. It does not matter whether the confession was made before the arrest or after, but as long as it was made to an authorized officer. But if procured through torture or any other inhuman treatment, it is inadmissible. 
 The latter phrase here in above has been reiterated in the Evidence Act (herein after to be referred as the “Act” S 27 (1) ready together with sub section (3). The Sections provides that: -  “A confession voluntary made to a Police Officer by a person accused of an offence may be proved as against that person” 

 While sub section 3 provides that, “A confession shall be held to be involuntary if the Court believes that it was induced by any threat, promise or other prejudice… by any other person in authority” 

 Although as a general rule confession obtained as a result of inducement or threat should not be admissible under s.27 of the Act, any confession made by the accused can be invalidated on the grounds of inducement, threat or promise. Conditions to be satisfied for excluding confession includes the followings: - 
 a. 	 The confession must appear to the Court to have been caused by any inducement threat or promise. 
 b. 	 Any such inducement, threat or promise must have reference to the charge against the accused person. 
 c. 	 Any such inducement, threat or promise must proceed from a person in authority. 

 a. 	 Any such inducement, threat or promise must be sufficient in the opinion of the Court to cause a reasonable belief in the mind of the accused that by making it he would gain an advantage or avoid an evil of a temporal nature.  

 Section 29 of the Act introduces an entirely new principle regarding the admissibility of confessions resulting from an inducement. Under the law operative else where in East Africa and in England such confessions if the inducement is offered by a person in authority are inadmissible. The test applied in determining whether the confession is admissible being that of its voluntaries. However, this section makes no distinction between confession made following an inducement by a person in authority and by a person not in authority and adds a new test of admissibility. In addition to the test of voluntaries, the test of whether or not the inducement has been likely to affect the truth of the confession is introduced. 

  That section presents certain difficulties since the intention may well have been that the later part of the section should render inadmissible confessions result from inducement likely to cause untrue admi