GUIDE ON ANTI-TORTURE LEGISLATION 26. The UN Human Rights Committee and other bodies and courts considers applying the principle of non-refoulement to risks of CIDTP The views of the UN Committee against Torture appear to be inconsistent on whether non-refoulement in article 3 extends to risks of CIDTP.171 Unlike the Committee against Torture, other human rights bodies and courts have applied the principle of non-refoulement where an individual faces a real risk of CIDTP in the receiving State. The Human Rights Committee for example considers that States parties to the ICCPR “must not expose individuals to the danger of torture or (CIDTP) upon return to another country by way of their extradition, expulsion or refoulement.” 172 The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) has stated that the duty [in article 2(d) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women] “encompasses the obligation of States parties to protect women from being exposed to a real, personal and foreseeable risk of serious forms of discrimination against women, including gender-based violence, irrespective of whether such consequences would take place outside the territorial boundaries of the sending State party”.173 The European Court of Human Rights has held that article 3 of the European Convention would be violated if the applicant were to be extradited, because he/she would be exposed to a “real risk” of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.174 Article 13 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture explicitly provides that a person shall not the extradited nor returned to a State when there are grounds to believe he/she will be subjected to CIDTP. International law is quite consistent in accepting that the principle of nonrefoulement applies to risks short of torture. Despite the Committee against Torture’s views on article 3, States are advised to be aware of the trend of international law when developing their legislative and other frameworks. CAT, General Comment N°2, op. cit. 1, § 19. See also Concluding observations on Kazakhstan (12 December 2014), UN Doc. CAT/C/KAZ/CO/4, § 16; Concluding observations on Togo (11 December 2012), UN Doc. CAT/C/TGO/CO/2, § 16; Concluding observations on Syrian Arab Republic (25 May 2010), UN Doc. CAT/C/SYR/CO/1, § 18; Concluding observations on Cameroon (19 May 2010), UN Doc. CAT/C/ CMR/CO/4, § 28; compared to CAT, Y v. Switzerland (12 July 2013), UN Doc. CAT/C/50/D/431/2010, § 7.7; CAT, M.V. v. The Netherlands (13 May 2003), UN Doc. CAT/C/30/D/201/2002, § 6.2; and CAT, T.M. v. Sweden (2 December 2003), UN Doc. CAT/C/31/D/228/2003, § 6.2. 171 CCPR, General Comment 20 on Article 7, Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies (29 July 1994), UN Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1. § 9. See also CCPR, Kindler v. Canada (30 July 1993), UN Doc. CCPR/C/48/D/470/1991, § 15.3 and CCPR, Ng v. Canada (5 November 2013), UN Doc. CCPR/C/49/D/469/1991, §§ 16.1-16.4. 172 CEDAW, General Recommendation N°32 on the gender-related dimensions of refugee status, asylum, nationality and statelessness of women, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/GC/32 (14 November 2014), §§ 17-23. 173 ECtHR, Soering v. United Kingdom, App. N°14038/88 (7 July 1989), §§ 91 and 92; see also ECtHR, Chahal v. United Kingdom, App. N°22414/93 (15 November 1996), § 96. See also ECtHR, Saadi v. Italy, App. N°37201/06 (28 February 2008), § 138; ECtHR, Hirsi Jamaa and others v Italy, App. N°27765/09 (23 February 2012), § 146; ECtHR, M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, App. N°30696/09 (21 January 2011), § 342. Please note a number of cases concerning expulsion on the grounds of an applicant’s ill-health have required exceptional circumstances: ECtHR, D. v. the United Kingdom, Case N°146/1996/767/964 (2 May 1997); ECtHR, N. v the United Kingdom, App. N°26565/05 (27 May 2008). 174 50