Universal-MigrationHRlaw-PG-no-6-Publications-PractitionersGuide-2014-eng

MIGRATION AND INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW | 131
a) Non-refoulement for torture and other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment
No State can “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.” 394 All
treaties containing this norm and their jurisprudence affirm the absolute
nature of this principle, and jurisprudence supports an equal prohibition
on expulsion to face cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment, as to face torture. 395 The Human Rights Committee has
stated that the principle of non-refoulement applies to all treatment
prohibited by Article 7 ICCPR. 396 The Convention against Torture makes
explicit the obligation of non-refoulement only for torture as defined in
Article 1 of CAT. However, the Committee against Torture has not addressed
refoulement to face a risk of other ill-treatment prohibited by
Article 16 CAT. 397 The danger of torture and ill-treatment can also arise
394 Rubin Byahuranga v. Denmark, CCPR, op. cit., fn. 334, para. 11.2; General Comment
No. 20 concerning prohibition of torture and cruel treatment or punishment, CCPR, UN Doc.
HRI/GEN/1/Rev.9 (Vol.I), 10 March 1992, para. 9.
395 Article 7 ICCPR; Article 5(b) ICERD; Article 3 ECHR; Article 5 ACHPR; Article I ADRDM;
Article 5 ACHR; Article 8 ArCHR. For jurisprudence see, inter alia, Saadi v. Italy, ECtHR,
op. cit., fn. 309, paras. 69, 127; Chahal v. United Kingdom, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 43, paras. 74
and 79; Na v. United Kingdom, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 309, para. 109; Nnyanzi v. United Kingdom,
ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 309, para. 51; Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden, ECtHR, op. cit.,
fn. 309, para. 69; Soering v. United Kingdom, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 295, paras. 85–91; Rafael
Ferrer-Mazorra et al. v. USA, IACHR, Case 9.903, Report No. 51/01, Merits, 4 April 2001,
para. 177; Haitian Interdictions Case, IACHR, op. cit., fn. 46, paras. 168 and 171; Institute
for Human Rights and Development in Africa (IHRDA) v. Republic of Angola, ACommHPR,
Communication No. 292/2004, 43 rd Ordinary Session, 7–22 May 2008, paras. 79
and 84; Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR) and the Institute for Human Rights
and Development (IHRD) (on behalf of Andrew Barclay Meldrum) v. Republic of Zimbabwe,
ACommHPR, Communication No. 294/2004, 6 th Extraordinary Session, 30 March–3 April 2009,
p. 34, para. 93; Concluding Observations on Argentina, CERD, UN Doc. CERD/C/65/CO/1,
10 December 2004, para. 13; Concluding Observations on the Netherlands, CERD, UN Doc.
CERD/C/64/CO/7, 10 May 2004, para. 14; Concluding Observations on Azerbaijan, CERD,
UN Doc. CERD/C/AZE/CO/4, 14 April 2005, para. 13; Concluding Observations on Georgia,
CERD, UN Doc. CERD/C/GEO/CO/3, 27 March 2007, para. 17; Concluding Observations on
Lithuania, CERD, UN Doc. CERD/C/LTU/CO/3, 11 April 2006, para. 14; Concluding Observations
on Uzbekistan, CERD, UN Doc. CERD/C/UZB/CO/5, 4 April 2006, para. 14; Concluding
Observations on Tanzania, CERD, UN Doc. CERD/C/TZA/CO/16, 27 March 2007, para. 17;
Concluding Observations on Kazakhstan, CERD, UN Doc. CERD/C/65/CO/3, 10 December
2004, para. 15.
396 CCPR, General Comment No. 31, op. cit., fn. 46, para.12
397 Article 3 CAT. The Committee against Torture has not addressed the question whether the
transfer of a person to a country could put the person at a risk of cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment, according to Article 16 of the Convention. The Committee has
dealt with the issue of whether the decision of the transfer would in itself constitute an act
of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In its jurisprudence the Committee
found that neither “the aggravation of the complainant’s state of health possibly caused
by his deportation”, nor the fact “that the complainant’s deportation to [the State of destination]
may give rise to subjective fears” amount to the type of cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment. See, B.S.S. v. Canada, CAT, op. cit., fn. 330, para. 10.2; David v. Sweden, CAT,
Communication No. 220/2002, Views of 17 May 2005, para. 7.2.