A/HRC/4/88 page 6 Ramzy v. the Netherlands (application No. 25424/05), a case involving a complaint under article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The applicant argues that, if removed from the Netherlands to Algeria, he will be exposed to a real risk of torture or ill-treatment at the hands of the Algerian authorities. The interveners argue that, even if such a risk exists, the principle of non-refoulement should be balanced against the security interests of the State. 12. I recall the well-established principle in international law which provides that, where there is a real risk of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in a receiving State, the prohibition of refoulement is absolute and may not be subject to any derogation, qualification or limitation. The principle is often considered a procedural rule which is implicit in, and complements, the general prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. However, the obligation also applies in cases involving other serious human rights violations. For example, the Human Rights Committee has stated that article 2 of ICCPR, which requires that States parties respect and ensure the Covenant rights for all persons in their territory and all persons under their control, “entails an obligation not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory, where there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, either in the country to which removal is to be effected or in any country to which the person may subsequently be removed”.3 While the Committee does not define which violations may amount to “irreparable harm”, at a minimum this would include arbitrary deprivation of the right to life and enforced disappearances, in addition to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Exposure to a manifestly unfair trial may similarly amount to such harm. Similarly, regional human rights courts as well as national courts have accepted the applicability of non-refoulement in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights provisions on torture and other ill-treatment (art. 3) and flagrant denial of justice (art. 6). There is also evidence to suggest that the protection afforded under article 6 of the European Convention extends to the practice of plea bargaining as this may compromise the right to a fair trial. Although not yet in force, the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights reflects the practice of the European Court of Human Rights and provides that “[n]o one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a State where there is a serous risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” (art. 19 (2)). 13. The transfer of an individual suspected of involvement in terrorism may have other serious human rights implications. For example, the transfer and detention of an individual inevitably poses a direct threat to the family life of that individual, notably because family members are often effectively prevented from contact and dependants may be deprived of their source of livelihood. From the perspective of international human rights law, the extent to which the obligation of non-refoulement applies in relation to transfers which may involve a risk of human rights violations such as the right to family life is not yet clear. I will continue to reflect on the scope of the principle of non-refoulement in the context of counter-terrorism. 14. With regard to the risk assessment for torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in individual cases, I note with concern that the different standards 3 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 31, para. 12.