A/HRC/8/13 page 12 which continues to apply at all times. Some States continue to use diplomatic assurances, memoranda of understanding, and other forms of diplomatic agreement to justify the return or irregular transfer of individuals suspected of terrorist activity to countries where despite such assurances they face a real risk of torture or other serious human rights abuse, a practice which raises a number of serious concerns both as a matter of human rights law and policy. 33. A restrictive approach to the use of these assurances has recently been confirmed in regional human rights jurisprudence. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Saadi v. Italy6 and Ismoilov v. Russia reaffirmed that the ban on deporting individuals to countries where they are at risk of torture or ill-treatment is absolute and unconditional. The judgement also addressed whether a State’s duty not to deport where there is a risk of torture or ill-treatment can be mitigated by promises of humane treatment from the State to which the individual is to be deported. The court held that such assurances do not automatically offset an existing risk, emphasizing “that the existence of domestic laws and accession to treaties were not sufficient to ensure adequate protection against the risk of ill-treatment”. Applying this principle in practice, the Court has never found assurances capable of displacing the risk of torture. National courts have also played a more assertive approach in critically examining such assurances.7 34. In my view, national and international efforts to eradicate torture must focus first and foremost on prevention, including through the establishment of systems of regular visits, by independent international and national bodies, of places where people are deprived of their liberty. The Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture sets out clear criteria in this regard. I encourage all States that have not ratified the Optional Protocol to do so as soon as possible to provide for enhanced system of prevention and as a sign of their good faith in this area. 35. The Venice Commission rendered its opinion 363/2005 on 17 March 2006 and dealt with the issue of rendition. In this Opinion, the Commission acknowledged that as movement around the world becomes easier and crime takes on a larger international dimension, it is increasingly in the interest of all nations that terrorist crimes be prevented and that persons who are suspected of having committed a very serious crime and are suspected to have acted from abroad or who have fled abroad should be brought to justice. In this context, the Commission specified that under international law and human rights law, there are four situations in which a State may lawfully transfer a prisoner to another State: deportation, extradition, transit and transfer of sentenced persons for the purposes of serving their sentence in another country. The Commission examined each of these categories citing the relevant international law principles involved. The Commission considered that the transfer of an individual which takes place outside the rule of 6 7 ECHR, application No. 37201/06, No. 131, 28 February 2008. See the two judgements on appeals of decisions from the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in the UK cited torture and ill-treatment in the receiving countries as grounds for barring the deportation of two nationals of the receiving countries. SIAC blocked the transfers despite “memorandums of understanding” from the two Governments that promised that suspects would not be tortured and would receive fair trials upon return.