44 MAMATKULOV AND ASKAROV v. TURKEY JUDGMENT JOINT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES Sir Nicolas BRATZA, BONELLO AND HEDIGAN 1. While we share the conclusion and reasoning of the majority of the Court that, in extraditing the applicants to Uzbekistan, Turkey failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention, we are unable to agree with their conclusion that the extradition of the applicants did not also give rise to a violation of Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention. In our view there was, in the circumstances of the present case, a violation of the applicants' rights under both those Articles. Article 3 2. The general principles governing the application of Article 3 of the Convention to cases of extradition or expulsion of an individual are summarised in paragraphs 66 to 70 of the judgment. We would only add to that summary that the prohibition in Article 3 against ill-treatment is an absolute prohibition even in the case of expulsion and extradition and that the activities of the individual in question, however undesirable or dangerous and whether or not terrorist-related, cannot be a material consideration where a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 has been shown (see Chahal v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V, p. 1855, §§ 79-80). Nor, where such a risk has been shown, is it any answer that a refusal to extradite would interfere with rights under international treaties or conflict with the norms of international judicial process or would inevitably involve an assessment of conditions in the requesting country which is not a Party to the Convention against the standards of Article 3 of the Convention (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, pp. 32-33, § 83, and pp. 34-36, §§ 88-91). 3. As is noted in the judgment, the existence of the risk that the individual concerned will, if returned, be subjected to treatment proscribed by Article 3 in the receiving country must be assessed primarily with reference to those facts which were known or ought to have been known to the Contracting State responsible for returning the person at the time of the extradition or expulsion in question. The Court is not precluded from having regard to information which comes to light subsequent to the return of the person, such information being of potential value in confirming or refuting the appreciation made by the Contracting State or the well-foundedness or otherwise of an applicant's fears. However, as is apparent from Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 37, § 112), evidence as to the actual treatment received by the