CAT/C/GC/4 13. Each case should be examined individually, impartially and independently by the State party through competent administrative and/or judicial authorities, 11 in conformity with essential procedural safeguards, notably the guarantee of a prompt and transparent process, a review of the deportation decision and a suspensive effect of the appeal.12 In each case, the person concerned should be informed of the intended deportation in a timely manner. Collective deportation, 13 without an objective examination of the individual cases with regard to personal risk, should be considered as a violation of the principle of nonrefoulement. 14. States parties should not adopt dissuasive measures or policies, such as detention in poor conditions for indefinite periods, refusing to process claims for asylum or prolonging them unduly, or cutting funds for assistance programmes for asylum seekers, which would compel persons in need of protection under article 3 of the Convention to return to their country of origin in spite of their personal risk of being subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment there.14 15. Article 16 of the Convention provides for the duty of States parties to prevent acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (ill-treatment), which do not amount to torture as defined in article 1 of the Convention. 15 16. States parties should consider whether the nature of the other forms of ill-treatment that a person facing deportation is at risk of experiencing could likely change so as to constitute torture, before making an assessment on each case relating to the principle of “non-refoulement”.16 17. The Committee considers that severe pain or suffering cannot always be assessed objectively. It depends on the negative physical and/or mental repercussions that the infliction of violent or abusive acts has on each individual, taking into account all relevant circumstances of each case, including the nature of the treatment, the sex, age and state of health and vulnerability of the victim and any other status or factors.17 III. Preventive measures to guarantee the principle of nonrefoulement 18. For the purpose of fully implementing article 3 of the Convention, States parties should take legislative, administrative, judicial and other preventive measures against possible violations of the principle of “non-refoulement”, including: (a) Ensuring the right of each person concerned to have the case examined individually and not collectively and to be fully informed of the reasons why the person is 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 (CAT/C/31/D/153/2000), para. 6.4; concluding observations on the combined fifth and sixth periodic reports of Greece (CAT/C/GRC/CO/5-6), para. 19; and concluding observations on the second periodic report of Serbia (CAT/C/SRB/CO/2), para. 15. See, for example, Agiza v. Sweden, para. 13.8. See, for example, concluding observations on the combined fifth and sixth periodic reports of Greece (CAT/C/GRC/CO/5-6), para. 19; and concluding observations on the combined fifth and sixth periodic reports of Italy (CAT/C/ITA/CO/5-6), para. 21 (c). See, for example, Kwami Mopongo and others v. Morocco (CAT/C/53/D/321/2007), paras. 6.2–6.3 and 11.3–11.4; Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 15 (1986) on the position of aliens under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, para. 10; and International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, art. 22 (1). See, for example, concluding observations on the combined fifth and sixth periodic reports of Greece (CAT/C/GRC/CO/5-6), para. 19. See general comment No. 2 (2007), paras. 3 and 6. Other international provisions directly relevant to the application of the principle of non-refoulement in cases of risk of ill-treatment are listed in paragraph 26 below. See general comment No. 2 (2007), para. 21. 3