A/HRC/4/88 page 7 applied at national level by States may be an impediment to the consistent application of non-refoulement in the context of counter-terrorism. Article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment requires “substantial grounds for believing that [the individual] would be in danger of being subjected to torture” which, according to Committee against Torture, requires “grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion”.4 The Human Rights Committee has stated that the non-refoulement obligation arises “where there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm”,5 while the European Court of Human Rights requires “substantial grounds ... for believing that an individual would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3”.6 At the national level, however, some Member States have applied a lower standard in assessing the risk, for example by requiring that the risk of torture or ill-treatment be “more likely than not”. All States should ensure that legislation at national level in relation to torture is consistent with the Convention against Torture, including appropriate penalties, in order to meet their obligations under international law to prevent and eliminate torture in all its forms. 15. The Committee against Torture has provided some guidance on the evaluation of risk of torture, an assessment which should seek to establish whether the individual concerned would be at personal risk of torture in the country to which he or she would be returned. According to the Committee, “the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violation of human rights in a country does not of itself constitute sufficient grounds for determining whether the person in question would be at risk of being subjected to torture upon return to that country”, “nor does the absence of such a situation mean that a person cannot be considered at risk of being subjected to torture”.7 An assessment must take place on a case-by-case basis, on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. For both practical and legal reasons, in cases related to the transfer of individuals from one country to another, the burden of proof should remain with the transferring State to produce relevant information about the risk of torture and ill-treatment in the receiving country. 16. Above all, national counter-terrorism strategies should seek to prevent acts of terrorism, prosecute those responsible for such criminal acts, and promote and protect human rights and the rule of law. In this regard I underscore the importance of respect for the principle of aut dedere aut iudicare (“extradite or prosecute”). While recognizing the significant challenges faced by States in dealing with individuals suspected of terrorist activity who remain within their jurisdiction, wherever possible such individuals should be prosecuted under national criminal legislation. From a security and law enforcement perspective, the most effective counter-terrorism strategies involve efforts by the State to allow individuals suspected of 4 Committee against Torture, general comment No. 1, para. 6. 5 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 31, para. 12. 6 Chahal v. the United Kingdom, ECHR, para. 80, 15 November 1996. 7 Committee against Torture, SG v. Netherlands (No. 135/1999), A/59/44, p. 11, para. 6.2.