a member of a specific group that is routinely targeted and tortured, this factor must be taken into account with respect to the nonrefoulement obligation.40 The current special rapporteur on torture, Manfred Nowak, echoed van Boven’s conclusion against the use of assurances for returns to countries where torture is systematic in one of his first public statements on the issue: In the situation that there’s a country where there’s a systematic practice of torture, no such assurances would be possible, because that is absolutely prohibited by international law, so in any case the government would deny that torture is actually systematic in that country, and could easily actually give these diplomatic assurances, but the practice then shows that they are not complied with. And there’s then no way or very, very little possibility of the sending country to actually—as soon as the person is in the other country—to make sure that this type of diplomatic assurances are complied with.41 Nowak’s statement not only categorically rejects the use of assurances to countries where torture is systematic, it highlights some of the most obvious flaws inherent in enforcing such guarantees in any case where they might be used, including perfunctory denials by the receiving state and the inability of the sending state to monitor effectively for torture after a person is transferred to an abusive state. U.N. Independent Expert on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms While Countering Terrorism The United Nations Independent Expert on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism, Robert K. Goldman, has also described as “troubling” states’ increased reliance on diplomatic assurances to effect transfers of terrorist suspects.42 In a February 2005 report, Goldman notes that “the mere fact that such assurances are sought is arguably a tacit admission by the sending State that the transferred person is indeed at risk of being tortured or ill-treated.”43 40 Ibid., para. 39. 41 BBC Radio 4, Today Programme, [What would it mean for terrorist suspects if the government did get its Prevention of Terrorism Bill through parliament?], March 4, 2005, at 8:30 [online] http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/zfriday_20050304.shtml (retrieved March 18, 2005). 42 U.N. Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Independent Expert on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism, E/CN.4/2005/103, February 7, 2005, para. 56, p. 19 [online] http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/docs/61chr/E.CN.4.2005.103.pdf (retrieved February 18, 2005). 43 Ibid. 17 HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH VOL. 17 NO. 4(D)