A/HRC/13/39 refoulement. The sending State is therefore responsible for undertaking a proper risk assessment of the situation in the receiving State. 66. Although there are similarities between the two, the refoulement procedure is not to be equated with the asylum procedure. While there are limitations to asylum in terms of the Refugee Convention, article 3 of the Convention against Torture and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights apply to every person and are not subject to any limitation or exclusion clauses. Consequently, the non-refoulement principle is absolute. While doubts about the credibility of the facts provided by the applicant can result in the refusal of asylum, the State has to ensure that the security of the applicant is not endangered, as continuously upheld by the Committee against Torture.18 67. The principle of non-refoulement has come under fire during the Special Rapporteur’s tenure both from the ever increasing tightening of immigration laws and domestic procedures that often only provide for superficial examinations by the authorities and the several attempts at undermining the principle in the context of the fight against terrorism (including through the so-called “test of reasonableness”, which balances the risk of torture against the threat to national security and the increased use of diplomatic assurances), where there were fears that States may use torture on persons suspected of terrorist acts. As the Special Rapporteur has stated repeatedly, diplomatic assurances related to torture are nothing but an attempt to circumvent the absolute nature of the principle of non-refoulement.19 VII. Conclusions and recommendations 68. Torture is a global phenomenon. Only a very small number of countries have managed to eradicate torture in practice. In the vast majority of States, torture not only occurs in isolated cases, but is practised in a more regular, widespread or even systematic manner. 69. Most victims of torture are not political prisoners or suspected of having committed political crimes, but ordinary persons suspected of having committed criminal offences. They usually belong to disadvantaged, discriminated and vulnerable groups, in particular those suffering from poverty. 70. The most frequent purpose of torture is to extract a confession. Since confessions in many contexts are still regarded as the crown of evidence, considerable pressure is exerted by politicians, the media, prosecutors and judges on law enforcement bodies to “solve criminal cases” by means of extracting confessions that are later used in courts to convict the suspects. 71. The major structural reason for the widespread practice of torture in many countries is the malfunctioning of the administration of justice and, consequently the lack of respect for safeguards. States are not investing sufficient resources in the administration of justice. Judges, prosecutors, police and prison officials are often undereducated, overworked, underpaid and, therefore, corrupt. 72. Another often-used reason for the widespread use of torture, particularly during the last decade, is the extraction of intelligence information in the context of 18 19 18 See Committee against Torture, Aemei v. Switzerland, communication No. 34/1995, para. 9.6, and A.S. v. Sweden, communication No. 149/1999, para. 8.6. See also communications Nos. 13/1993, para. 9.2; 15/1994, para. 12.3; 34/1995, para. 9.6; 138/1999, para. 7.3. See E/CN.4/2006/6 and A/60/316. GE.10-10042