A/HRC/37/50 42. In order for the required risk assessment to be effective, it must take into account vulnerabilities, in particular pre-existing psychological trauma that may affect a person’s ability to effectively engage with standard procedures. This is particularly relevant where asylum proceedings and similar risk assessments rely on credibility assessments, which have been demonstrated to produce false negatives when applied to persons with psychological trauma.69 Whenever the applicant makes an arguable case of past torture, the State will have to rigorously examine the claim in line with recognized standards for effective investigation and documentation of torture and ill-treatment as provided in the "Istanbul Protocol" and, in particular, its principles guiding forensic medical evaluations.70 43. In substantive terms, the mere existence of domestic laws or the ratification of human rights treaties does not disprove an individual risk of torture or ill-treatment.71 The decisive criteria for identifying such a risk will always be the particular circumstances and prospects of the affected individual. This does not mean that the source of that risk needs to be individualized, such as a personal stigmatization or membership in a particular political party, ethnic group or social minority, 72 but it can also be found in a general situation of violence exposing the individual in question to a real risk of ill-treatment.73 Similarly, systemic shortcomings in the receiving State have been found to give rise to a risk of "indirect refoulement" (also "chain refoulement"), by which the receiving State would further expel a deportee to yet another State or territory without the benefit of a sufficient assessment of the risk of torture or ill-treatment prevalent in the final destination State.74 44. States must interpret and perform the principle of non-refoulement in good faith and, therefore, cannot lawfully pass any law or regulation, engage in any policy or practice, or conclude any agreement with other States or non-State actors, which would undermine or defeat its object and purpose, which is to ensure that States refrain from any conduct or arrangement which they know, or ought to know in the circumstances, would subject or expose migrants to acts or risks of torture or ill-treatment by perpetrators beyond their jurisdiction and control.75 While the prohibition of refoulement is clear and straightforward as a matter of law, several practices introduced by States as part of recent migration policies point towards a deliberate erosion of good faith compliance with this cornerstone protection against torture and ill-treatment. 1. Deliberately harsh reception conditions 45. For example, States increasingly subject migrants to unnecessary, disproportionate and deliberately harsh reception conditions designed to coerce them to "voluntarily" return to their country of origin, regardless of their need of non-refoulement protection. This may include measures such as the criminalisation, isolation and detention of irregular migrants, the deprivation of medical care, public services and adequate living conditions, the deliberate separation of family members, and the denial or excessive prolongation of status determination or habeas corpus proceedings.76 In the view of the Special Rapporteur, deliberate practices such as these amount to "refoulement in disguise" and are incompatible with the principle of good faith. 2. Readmission agreements 46. Readmission agreements are bilateral agreements that allow States to return migrants to a "safe" country, which, in turn, is obliged to accept (readmit) these returnees. Readmission 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 https://www.freedomfromtorture.org/sites/default/files/documents/Juliet CohenRecallandCredibility.pdf; Principles_on_the_Effective_Investigation_and_Documentation_of_Torture_and_Other_Cruel,_ Inhuman_or_Degrading_Treatment_or_Punishment,_annexed_to: A/RES/55/89(04.12.2000) and E_CN_4-RES-2000-43(20.04.2000) ECtHR, Hirsi_Jamaa_v._Italy(No.27765/09), 23.02.2012, §128. ECtHR, Ergashev_v._Russia(No.49747/11), 16.10.2012. ECtHR, Sufi_and_Elmi_v._UK(No. 8319/07_and_11449/07), 28.06.2011, §217. ECtHR, MSS_v._Belgium_and_Greece(No.30696/09), Jgmt 21.01.2011, §§357-359; CAT, GC_No.4_(2017)_Art.3, §12; CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13(26.05.2004),§12. A/HRC/25/60, §§40-58. CAT, GC_No.4_(2017)_Art.3, §14. 13