Existing national standards from the perspective of International Law After significant public pressure, Canada and the UK both published guidance issued to their executive agencies on the use of information. It is important to analyse each to understand how States appreciate their obligations under international law. Lessons may be drawn for other States who are contemplating or already have similar (unpublished) guidelines. United Kingdom In 2010, the UK published its Consolidated Guidance to Intelligence Officers and Service Personnel on the Detention and Interviewing of Detainees Overseas, and on the Passing and Receipt of Intelligence Relating to Detainees. 35 The United Kingdom Government’s policy on such conduct is clear – we do not participate in, solicit, encourage or condone the use of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment for any purpose. 36 Despite providing a clear public commitment to prohibit torture, however, later detail in the guidance has led to questions over how effective the prohibition is in practice. First, the guidance provides that State actors should not proceed to work with a foreign agency where there is a ‘serious’ risk of torture. Such a high threshold would appear to exceed what is required in international law, where it is submitted only a ‘real’ risk should prevent engagement. 37 Even in The UK guidance was later revised to make clearer that the hooding of detainees by foreign States in any circumstances constitutes torture or other ill-treatment. 36 See UK guidance, para.6. 37 A ‘real risk’ of torture engages the non-refoulement obligation of UNCAT article 3 preventing an executive order of deportation and it is submitted to be the most appropriate standard for effectively preventing the risk of torture to a detainee held overseas. 35 29