A/HRC/4/40 page 22 as a result of the exercise of freedoms of expression or opinion will most of the time fall under the scope of article 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention. Moreover, as a matter of experience, torture, inhuman and degrading treatment are much more likely to occur in detention when procedural safeguards protecting the legality of detention are disregarded. 49. The cases brought to the Working Group’s attention, however, evidence the need for Governments to include the risk of arbitrary detention in the receiving State per se among the elements to be taken into consideration when asked to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise hand a person over to the authorities of another State, particularly in the context of efforts to counter terrorism. To remove a person to a State where there is a genuine risk that the person will be detained without legal basis, or without charges over a prolonged time, or tried before a court that manifestly follows orders from the executive branch, cannot be considered compatible with the obligation in article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which requires that States parties respect and ensure the Covenant rights for all persons in their territory and under their control. If the three categories of arbitrary detention identified by the Working Group are used as standard, extending the prohibition of refoulement to the risk of arbitrary detention will not place an unrealistic burden on Governments. In fact, the United Nations Model Treaty on Extradition places a more exigent obligation on Governments. Under its article 3 (f) it is a mandatory ground to refuse extradition “[i]f the person whose extradition is requested … would not receive the minimum guarantees in criminal proceedings, as contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 14”. E. Renditions 50. The practice of “renditions”, i.e. the informal transfer of a person from the jurisdiction of one State to that of another on the basis of negotiations between administrative authorities of the two countries (often the intelligence services), without procedural safeguards is irremediably in conflict with the requirements of international law. When a Government eludes procedural safeguards, in particular the affected person’s right to be heard, it cannot in good faith claim that it has taken reasonable steps to protect that person’s human rights after removal, including the right not to be arbitrarily detained. As a consequence, it will share responsibility for ensuing arbitrary detention. 51. Governments should therefore stop all forms of rendition and return to the extradition, deportation and expulsion proceedings that are well established in their laws. This is in no way incompatible with the obligation to cooperate swiftly and effectively in international efforts to counter terrorism. F. Diplomatic assurances with regard to detention and fair trial 52. The practice of obtaining “diplomatic assurances” from the receiving State in order to overcome the obstacle of the non-refoulement principle has been much discussed recently. As far as detention and fair trial are concerned, such assurances are acceptable only if very stringent conditions are met. 53. First, they must not be used to circumvent higher applicable standards. Where an extradition treaty is in force between two States, removal for criminal proceedings must take place pursuant to that treaty. If the treaty provides, along the lines of article 3 (f) of the