A/HRC/22/53/Add.4 Ukraine (a) UA 17/08/2012 Csae No. UKR 2/2012 State reply: None to date Alleged refoulment of a Russian national to the Russian Federation 144. The Special Rapporteur regrets that the Government of the Ukraine has not responded to this communication dated 17 August 2012, thereby failing to cooperate with the mandate established by the Human Rights Council. The communication referred to the alleged imminent deportation of Mr. X, a member of the Ingush Muslim community, to the Russian Federation. The Special Rapporteur expressed concern over allegations that Mr. X faces a serious risk of being subject to torture and inhuman treatment by Russian authorities due to charges with offenses associated with participation in armed groups and armed violence in Ingushetia. The Special Rapporteur stresses the Government‟s obligation to protect the right to physical and mental integrity of all persons, set forth inter alia in the UDHR, the ICCPR and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). In this context, the Special Rapporteur reiterates that article 3 of the Convention against Torture holds 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 also draws the attention of the Government to paragraph 9 of General Commend No. 20 of the Human Rights Committee states that State parties must not expose individuals to the danger of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment upon return to another country by way of extradition, expulsion or refoulement. The Special Rapporteur additionally reminds the Government of paragraph 6d of Human Rights Council Resolution 8/8 and paragraph 7d of Human Rights Council Resolution 16/23, which urge States not to expel, return, or 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 stresses the importance of effective legal and procedural safeguards in this regard and recognizing 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. The Special Rapporteur calls on the Government to ensure a thorough and fair assessment to ascertain whether Mr. X is at risk of being tortured or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and urges the Government to take all necessary measures to guarantee that his rights and freedoms are respected. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (a) AL 05/07/2012 Case No. GBR 2/2012 State reply: 28/August/2012 Alleged widespread and systematic torture committed by British authorities in Kenya prior to its independence 145. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for its reply, dated 28 August 2012, to this communication in reference to the situation of Mr. Wambugu Wa Nyingi, Mr. Paulo Muoka Nzili, Ms. Jane Muthoni Mara, Ms. Naomi Nziula Kimweli, and Mr. Samuel Kimweli Mbithuka Kilatya, who are seeking redress from the British Government for acts of torture to which they were allegedly subjected by British authorities prior to Kenyan independence. In its reply, the Government states that the interim ruling issued in the case allows the case to proceed against the Government‟s preliminary objections, and does not constitute a definitive finding of liability against the Government. The Government expressed the opinion that international law does not establish rules concerning limitation periods for civil actions in national courts for wrongs that may amount to torture, and that a fair trial in a civil case relating to matters 80