Prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment from an extraterritorial perspective 2015, para. 43

Paragraph

Paragraph text: States' non-refoulement obligations also embrace fundamental procedural obligations and rights that cannot be bypassed. First and foremost is the obligation to offer individuals a fair opportunity to make claims for refugee or asylum status, including the right not be returned to places where they risk being subjected to torture or other ill-treatment. In addition, there is the right to challenge detention and potential transfer (Committee against Torture, Arana v. France) on the basis of fear of mistreatment in the receiving State, which may be understood as a substantive guarantee of non-refoulement, part of the right to an effective remedy and inherent in the right to due process of law (Inter-American Court of Human Rights, United States Interdiction of Haitians on the High Seas). This challenge must take place prior to transfer (Human Rights Committee, Alzery v. Sweden), before an independent decision maker with the power to suspend the transfer during the pendency of the review and must be an individualized procedure incorporating timely notification of potential transfer and the right to appear before this independent body in person (Agiza v. Sweden). This inquiry is separate and independent from the determination of refugee status or grant or refusal of asylum.

Body: Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

Topic(s)

Person(s) affected