CAT/C/GC/4 25. Furthermore, those States parties to the Convention that subsequently consider the conclusion of or adherence to an extradition treaty should ensure that there is no conflict between the Convention and that treaty and, if there is, include in the notification of adherence to the extradition treaty the clause that, in case of conflict, the Convention will prevail. VII. Relationship between article 3 and article 16 of the Convention 26. Article 3 of the Convention, which provides protection against the removal of a person in danger of being subjected to torture in the State to which the person would be deported, should be without prejudice to article 16 (2) of the Convention, in particular where a person to be removed would enjoy additional protection, under international instruments or national law, not to be deported to a State where the person would face the risk of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 28 VIII. Duties of States parties to consider specific human rights situations in which the principle of non-refoulement applies 27. Article 3 (2) of the Convention provides that for the purpose of determining whether there are grounds for believing that a person would be in danger of being subjected to torture, if expelled, returned or extradited, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.29 28. In this regard, the Committee observes that the infliction of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, whether or not it amounts to torture, to which an individual or the individual’s family were exposed in their State of origin or would be exposed in the State to which the individual is being deported, constitutes an indication that the person is in danger of being subjected to torture if deported to one of those States. Such an indication should be taken into account by States parties as a basic element justifying the application of the principle of non-refoulement. 29. In this connection, the Committee wishes to draw the attention of the States parties to some non-exhaustive examples of human rights situations that may constitute an indication of risk of torture, to which they should give consideration in their decisions on the removal of a person from their territory and take into account when applying the principle of “non-refoulement”. States parties should consider, in particular: 28 29 6 Examples of other international provisions directly relevant to the application of the principle of “non-refoulement” in cases of risk of torture and other ill-treatment for a person in the country to which the person is being deported may be found by States parties to the Convention that are also parties to other relevant treaties in the following instruments: (a) International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (art. 56 (3)); (b) International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (art. 16 (1)); (c) Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (art. 33 (1)); (d) Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (art. 19 (2)); (e) Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (final paragraph of article 13); (f) American Convention on Human Rights (art. 22 (8) and (9)); (g) African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (art. 12 (3)); (h) Organization of African Unity Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa (arts. II (3) and V (1)). See, for example, G.R.B v. Sweden, para. 6.3; H.M.H.I. v. Australia (CAT/C/28/D/177/2001), para. 6.5; S.P.A. v. Canada (CAT/C/37/D/282/2005), para. 7.1; T.I. v. Canada (CAT/C/45/D/333/2007), para. 7.3; A.M.A. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/45/D/344/2008), para. 7.2; and E.K.W. v. Finland (CAT/C/54/D/490/2012), paras. 9.3 and 9.7.