A/HRC/22/53/Add.4 enforcement officials to: “(a) Exercise restraint in such use and act in proportion to the seriousness of the offence and the legitimate objective to be achieved; (b) Minimize damage and injury, and respect and preserve human life; (c) Ensure that assistance and medical aid are rendered to any injured or affected persons at the earliest possible moment; (d) Ensure that relatives or close friends of the injured or affected person are notified at the earliest possible moment.” Without any evidence to the country, the Special Rapporteur determines that the rights of the victims under the Convention against Torture have been violated, and calls on the Government of Kazakhstan to ensure a prompt, independent and impartial investigation, leading to prosecution and punishment of the perpetrators of torture, and to provide full redress to the victims, including fair and adequate compensation, and as full rehabilitation as possible. Korea (Republic of) (a) JAL 17/04/2012 Case No. KOR 1/2012 State reply: 21/06/2012 Alleged deportation and secret detention in Uzbekistan. 78. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of the Republic of Korea for its response, dated 21 June 2012, to this communication in reference to the entry of Mr. X to the Republic of Korea reportedly to avoid the risk of persecution and torture in Uzbekistan for his religious beliefs. In its reply, the Government indicated that Mr. X illegally entered the Republic and did not initially disclose that the purpose of his entry to Korea was to escape any potential persecution. Upon consideration of his refugee status application, the Government found Mr. X did not sufficiently substantiate the allegations of persecution and torture if deported, thereby rejecting his refugee status application and deporting him to Uzbekistan. The whereabouts of above-mentioned person remain unknown. In this context, the Special Rapporteur would like to reiterate article 3 of the Convention against Torture, which provides that no State party shall expel, return (“refouler”), or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture. The Special Rapporteur concludes that prior history of persecution is highly relevant to the determination of risk. The non-refoulement obligation is reaffirmed in paragraph 9 of General Comment 20 of the Human Rights Committee and paragraph 9 of the Resolution A/RES/61/253 of the UN General Assembly. The Special Rapporteur draws attention to paragraph 16 of the 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 nonrefoulement.” The Special Rapporteur also recalls that paragraph 7(d) of Human Rights Council Resolution 16/23 of 12 April 2011 urges States “[n]ot to expel, return (refouler), extradite or in any 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.” The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its explanation of Mr. X‟s arrest and of the subsequent administrative proceedings undertaken to determine refugee status. However, the Special Rapporteur calls on the Government to ensure a thorough risk assessment to ascertain whether anyone deported may be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the receiving country. The Special Rapporteur urges the Government of Korea to take all necessary measures to guarantee that the rights and freedoms of Mr. X are respected and to refrain from any future acts of refoulement. 44