A/HRC/31/57/Add.1 United States of America (a) UA 31/07/2014 Case No. USA 12/2014 State Reply: 13/03/2015 Allegations concerning the situation of seven non-Afghan nationals in U.S. military custody at the Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, who are at risk of being forcibly transferred to the custody of other States where they may be tortured, ill-treated or even summarily executed 616. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of the United States for its reply, dated 17 March 2015, to the present communication. The Rapporteur takes note of the information provided that the United States Government does not transfer any individual to a foreign country if it is more likely than not that the person would be tortured and that it is US practice to seek post-transfer confidential monitoring of the detainees. In spite of the information supplied by the Government that each detainee was transferred consistent with the foregoing policy, its reply fails to inform the Rapporteur of the specific fate and whereabouts of the seven persons detained identified in the initial communication. 617. Under these circumstances it is impossible for the Special Rapporteur whether or not the US government has violated its obligations of non-refoulement as expressed in paragraph 16 of Resolution A/RES/65/205 of the UN General Assembly, which urges States “not to expel, return (“refouler”), extradite or in any other way transfer a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture, and recognizes that diplomatic assurances, where used, do not release States from their obligations under international human rights, humanitarian and refugee law, in particular the principle of non-refoulement.” 618. In the 2015 report of the Special Rapporteur presented to the General Assembly, (A/70/303), he calls upon the absolute prohibition of non-refoulement applies at all times, even when States are operating or holding individuals extraterritorially, including border control operations on the high seas. The procurement of diplomatic assurances, which are inherently unreliable and ineffective, cannot be used by States to escape the absolute obligation to refrain from refoulement. 619. In addition, the Special Rapporteur respectfully disagrees with the Government in the use of the “more-likely-than-not” standard for the assessment of the risk of torture or illtreatment to which a person may be exposed if deported or extradited. In the plain language of the CAT, even a less than 50% chance of such treatment constitutes a risk that triggers the absolute prohibition of refoulement. 620. The Special Rapporteur urges the Government of the United States to provide additional information about the fate and whereabouts of the seven persons detained in U.S. military custody and later transferred to other jurisdictions, and to ensure their rights are respected in compliance with international law, in particular the international principle of non-refoulement as expressed above. (b) JUA 01/12/2014 Case No. USA 18/2014 State Reply: 11/12/2014 Allegation concerning the situation of Mr. Scott Louis Panetti, death row prisoner since 1995 who suffers from serious mental illness. Mr. Panetti is reportedly at risk of being executed in the state of Texas, United States of America. 621. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of the United States of America for its reply, dated 11 December 2014, to the present communication. 622. The Rapporteur takes note of the information provided by the Government that on the date Mr. Panetti was to be executed, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a stay of execution to consider the complex legal questions at issue. The Rapporteur finds that the Government, in its reply, does not sufficiently address the concerns raised in the initial communication, which prompts him to infer that the 103