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

MIGRATION AND INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW | 125cal expertise, available at any moment. 364 The monitoring undertakenwould have to be, “in fact and in the concerned person’s perception,objective, impartial and sufficiently trustworthy.” 365 Even where suchhigh levels of safeguards do apply, the former UN Special Rapporteur onTorture affirmed that “diplomatic assurances with regard to torture arenothing but attempts to circumvent the absolute prohibition of tortureand refoulement.” 366g) Place of transfer: indirect refoulement and internalrelocationThe principle of non-refoulement applies both to transfers to a Statewhere the person will be at risk (direct refoulement), and to transfers toStates where there is a risk of further transfer to a third country wherethe person will be at risk (indirect refoulement). 367 The Grand Chamberof the European Court of Human Rights, in Hirsi Jamaa and Others v.Italy, clarified that the sending State must “ensure that the intermediarycountry offers sufficient guarantees to prevent the person concernedbeing removed to his country of origin without an assessment ofthe risks faced”. 368 The Court stressed that, including in cases of indirectrefoulement, the State “is not exempt from complying with its obligationsunder Article 3 of the Convention because the applicants failed toask for asylum or to describe the risks faced as a result of the lack ofan asylum system in [the intermediary country of return]. It reiteratesthat the [State] authorities [should ascertain] how the [intermediarycountry] authorities fulfilled their international obligations in relation tothe protection of refugees.” 369In considering whether there is a breach of the principle of non-refoulement,the exact location within a country to which the person is tobe transferred may be important. If a person can be safely relocated inone part of the country, without incurring the risk of violation, the obligationof non-refoulement will not be violated. 370 The federal or unitary364 Alzery v. Sweden, CCPR, Communication No. 1416/2005, Views of 10 November 2006,para. 11.5; Zhakhongir Maksudov and Others v. Kyrgyzstan, CCPR, op. cit., fn. 324,paras. 12.5–12.6; Concluding Observations on Denmark, CCPR, UN Doc. CCPR/C/DNK/CO/5,16 December 2008, para. 10.365 Pelit v. Azerbaijan, CAT, op. cit., fn. 339, para. 11.366 Nowak, Report 2005, op. cit., fn. 359, para. 32.367 CCPR, General Comment No. 31, op. cit., fn. 46, para. 12; General Comment No. 1: Implementationof article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, CAT, UN Doc. A/53/44,annex IX, 21 November 1997, para. 2; Hamayak Korban v. Sweden, CAT, CommunicationNo. 88/1997, Views of 16 November 1998, para. 7; Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands,ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 317, para. 141; M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 324,para. 342.368 Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy, ECtHR, GC, op. cit., fn. 46, para. 147.369 Ibid., para. 157.370 B.S.S. v. Canada, CAT, op. cit., fn. 330, para. 11.5.