A/60/316 repeated statements to United States officials that he would be tortured in the Syrian Arab Republic and his repeated requests to be sent home to Canada. The Government of the United States has claimed that prior to Mr. Arar’s transfer, it had obtained assurances from the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic that he would not be subjected to torture upon return. Mr. Arar was released from Syrian custody 10 months later without charge and alleged that he had been beaten by security officers in Jordan and tortured repeatedly, often with cables and electrical cords, during his confinement in a Syrian prison. Mr. Arar filed suit in United States Federal Court on 22 January 2004, alleging that United States officials and agents involved in his transfer had violated the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Government’s treaty obligations under the Convention against Torture and the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991. In seeking to dismiss the lawsuit, the United States Department of Justice employed the rarely invoked “State secrets privilege” (section 102 (a) of the National Security Act of 1947) and filed a motion in January 2005 stating that the release of any official information concerning Mr. Arar’s transfer to Syria could jeopardize the intelligence, foreign policy and national security interests of the United States. 50. The Government of the United States has not explained why it sent Mr. Arar to Syria rather than to Canada, where he resides, or why it believed the assurances of the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic to be credible in the light of serious and credible allegations of torture emanating from that country. Furthermore the Government of the United States has also refused to release any information regarding the assurances against torture it claims it received from Syria in the case of Maher Arar. D. Conclusion 51. It is the view of the Special Rapporteur that diplomatic assurances are unreliable and ineffective in the protection against torture and ill-treatment: such assurances are sought usually from States where the practice of torture is systematic; post-return monitoring mechanisms have proven to be no guarantee against torture; diplomatic assurances are not legally binding, therefore they carry no legal effect and no accountability if breached; and the person whom the assurances aim to protect has no recourse if the assurances are violated. The Special Rapporteur is therefore of the opinion that States cannot resort to diplomatic assurances as a safeguard against torture and ill-treatment where there are substantial grounds for believing that a person would be in danger of being subjected to torture or ill-treatment upon return. 52. The Special Rapporteur calls on Governments to observe the principle of non-refoulement scrupulously and not expel any person to frontiers or territories where they might run the risk of human rights violations, regardless of whether they have officially been recognized as refugees. Notes 1 See also E/CN.4/1996/35, E/CN.4/1997/7, A/54/426, A/55/290 and A/57/173. 2 E/CN.4/1997/7, paras. 7 and 10, and E/CN.4/1997/7/Add.1, para. 435. 13