A/HRC/4/88 page 5 9. I continue to be concerned by the use by some States of 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 they may face a real risk of torture or other serious human rights abuse. There is well-established case law and evidence to demonstrate that such arrangements do not work as they do not provide adequate protection against torture and ill-treatment. Diplomatic assurances do not nullify the obligation of non-refoulement, which requires that States refrain from returning an individual to a territory where there is a real risk of ill-treatment. In most cases, assurances are concluded between States which are party to binding international and regional treaties which prohibit torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and refoulement to such practices. Ad hoc agreements concluded outside the international human rights legal framework threaten to weaken this system and erode the human rights principles in which it is firmly grounded. Efforts should focus on the full implementation of international human rights obligations through existing structures, notably through the establishment of systems of regular visits, by independent international and national bodies, of places where people are deprived of their liberty. Under States’ international human rights obligations, States must take active measures to investigate allegations where there is credible information that individuals are being transported by or through a State’s jurisdiction to a place where they face a real risk of torture. 10. The principle of non-refoulement is recognized explicitly in article 33, paragraph 1, of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and in article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, as well as in article 16 of the newly adopted International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. It is also reflected in article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which the Human Rights Committee has interpreted to include an obligation on States not to expose individuals to “the danger of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment upon return to another country by way of their extradition, expulsion or refoulement”1 and, at regional level, in article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. 11. A Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights reaffirmed the unqualified nature of the prohibition on refoulement in its decision in Chahal v. The United Kingdom, noting that the prohibition is absolute and is not subject to exceptions, even in cases where State security is at stake.2 In the context of counter-terrorism, however, the absolute nature of the prohibition is under challenge. For example, certain Governments currently are seeking to test the absolute nature of the legal prohibition on refoulement as set out in Chahal through their interventions as third parties before the European Court of Human Rights in 1 General comment No. 20 on the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (art. 7), HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1, para. 9. 2 Chahal v. The United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, Reports 1996-V, paras. 74 and 80: “Where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person in question, if expelled, would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 (art. 3) in the receiving country.” See also Louise Arbour, “In our name and on our behalf”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 55, No. 511 (2006), p. 517, footnote 15.