A/HRC/44/29 under an international transfer as well as domestic diversion, such as diversion from State holdings or stockpiles. Such diversion may happen as a result of inadequate stockpile management or security, or as a consequence of corruption, resulting in the sale of Stateheld weapons by corrupt officials or armoury guards to illicit end users. 14 8. Diversion15 during transfer and post-delivery storage includes the retransfer of the arms to an unauthorized third party if the original exporter imposed restrictions on the retransfer and the State seeking to retransfer does not observe those restrictions.16 In this sense, diversion would include cases in which a State imports arms on the condition that they may only be used by its armed forces, but later transfers those arms to another State. Diversion during transfer and post-delivery storage also includes situations in which an importing State undertakes to use the arms for a certain end use and changes the end use without the authorization of the original exporting State. 17 Therefore, diversion would also include cases in which a State imports arms for exclusive use by its armed forces, but later transfers them to community groups that do not officially form part of its armed forces. 9. “Arms transfer” generally covers the export, import, sale, lease or loan of arms from the jurisdiction and/or control of one State to that of another. 18 The Disarmament Commission’s Guidelines for international arms transfers in the context of General Assembly resolution 46/36 H provide a broad definition of “illicit arms trafficking”, which includes international trade in conventional arms outlawed by international law and relevant national laws.19 A transfer of arms for the purpose of aiding or assisting a State to commit torture would be illicit because it violates international law.20 Similarly, an arms transfer by a State party to the Arms Trade Treaty that violates a Security Council arms embargo 21 or fails to properly assess the risk that the arms could be used to commit or facilitate serious acts of gender-based violence22 would also be illicit. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 4 Therefore, if a State imports assault rifles under an end-use certificate specifying that they will be delivered to the armed forces, but distributes them to traffic police, this would constitute diversion. Parker, “Article 11. Diversion”, para. 11.23. The Secretary-General has also pointed out that inadequate physical security of stockpiles can result in diversion of arms to illicit markets, including to non-State armed groups, terrorists and transnational organizations (Securing Our Common Future: An Agenda for Disarmament, p. 44). Diversion of arms can occur during any of the five major stages of the “supply chain”: during manufacture; before the transfer (point of embarkation); during the transfer (in transit to the authorized end user); during post-delivery storage (physical security and stockpile management); or during end use or disposal. See the contribution of UNIDIR, citing GGE/PACAS/2020/3, para. 6. For a comprehensive discussion of the main incident points within the stages of diversion, please see GGE/PACAS/2020/3, paras. 8–13. See the contribution of UNIDIR, citing GGE/PACAS/2020/3, para. 9 and annex I. See also Parker, “Article 11. Diversion”, para. 11.33, citing Schroeder, Close and Stevenson, “Deadly deception: arms transfer diversion”, p. 115. See the contribution of UNIDIR, citing GGE/PACAS/2020/3, para. 9 and annex I. See also Parker, “Article 11. Diversion”, para. 11.33, citing Schroeder, Close and Stevenson, “Deadly deception: arms transfer diversion”, p. 115. A/HRC/35/8, footnote 3. Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-first Session, Supplement No. 42 (A/51/42), annex I, para. 7. Article 16 of the International Law Commission’s draft articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts asserts that a State which aids or assists another State in the commission of an internationally wrongful act by the latter is internationally responsible for doing so if: (a) that State does so with the knowledge of the circumstances of the internationally wrongful act; and (b) the act would be internationally wrongful if committed by that State (Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-sixth Session, Supplement No. 10 and corrigendum (A/56/10 and A/56/10/Corr.1), p. 47). The International Law Commission has also stated that the prohibition of torture is a peremptory norm of general international law (jus cogens) (Official Records of the General Assembly, Seventyfirst Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/74/10), pp. 146–147, conclusion 23 and annex). See Arms Trade Treaty, art. 6 (1). Ibid., art. 7 (4).