CAT/C/GC/4 IV. Diplomatic assurances 19. The term “diplomatic assurances” as used in the context of the transfer of a person from one State to another, refers to a formal commitment by the receiving State to the effect that the person concerned will be treated in accordance with conditions set by the sending State and in accordance with international human rights standards. 20. The Committee considers that diplomatic assurances from a State party to the Convention to which a person is to be deported should not be used as a loophole to undermine the principle of non-refoulement as set out in article 3 of the Convention, where there are substantial grounds for believing that the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture in that State.26 V. Redress 21. The Committee recalls that it considers the term “redress” in article 14 of the Convention as encompassing the concepts of “effective remedy” and “reparation”. The comprehensive reparative concept therefore entails restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition and refers to the full scope of measures required to redress violations under the Convention. 27 22. States parties should recognize that victims of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment suffer physical and psychological harm that may require sustained availability of and access to specialized rehabilitation services. Once such a state of health and the need for treatment have been medically certified, they should not be removed to a State where adequate medical services for their rehabilitation are not available or guaranteed. VI. Article 3 of the Convention and extradition treaties 23. States parties may find that a conflict arises between the obligations they have undertaken under article 3 of the Convention and the obligations they have undertaken under a multilateral or bilateral extradition treaty, especially when the treaty was concluded before the ratification of the Convention with a State which is not a party to the Convention and, therefore, when not yet bound by the provisions of article 3. In this case, the relevant extradition treaty should be applied in accordance with the principle of non-refoulement. 24. The Committee acknowledges that the time frame for extradition of a person for the purpose of criminal prosecution or serving a sentence, who has submitted a communication under article 22 of the Convention invoking the principle of “non-refoulement”, is a crucial factor for the respect by the State of its obligations under both the Convention and an extradition treaty to which it is a party. The Committee, therefore, requests that, should a State party encounter such a situation, it inform the Committee about any possible conflict between its obligations under the Convention and those under an extradition treaty from the beginning of the individual complaint procedure in which the State party is involved so that the Committee may try to give priority to the consideration of that communication before the time limit for the obligatory extradition is reached. The State party concerned, however, should recognize that the Committee can give priority to the consideration of and a decision on such a communication only during its sessions. 26 27 See Agiza v. Sweden, para. 13.4; Tursunov v. Kazakhstan (CAT/C/54/D/538/2013), para. 9.10; and H.Y. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/61/D/747/2016), para. 10.7. See also concluding observations on the combined third to fifth periodic reports of the United States of America (CAT/C/USA/CO/3-5), para. 16; concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Morocco (CAT/C/MAR/CO/4), para. 9; concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of Germany (CAT/C/DEU/CO/5), para. 25; and concluding observations on the second periodic report of Albania (CAT/C/ALB/CO/2), para. 19. See general comment No. 3 (2012) on the implementation of article 14, para. 2. 5