A/60/316 28. On the basis of the review of jurisprudence of international and regional human rights mechanisms, the Special Rapporteur concludes that any form of corporal punishment is contrary to the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Moreover, States cannot invoke provisions of domestic law to justify the violation of their human rights obligations under international law, including the prohibition of corporal punishment. He therefore calls upon States to abolish all forms of judicial and administrative corporal punishment without delay. III. Principle of non-refoulement and diplomatic assurances 29. The Special Rapporteur continues to receive a large number of allegations involving persons in circumstances where the absolute principle of non-refoulement has not been respected. Several Governments, in the fight against terrorism, have transferred or proposed to return alleged terrorist suspects to countries where they may be at risk of torture or ill-treatment. In this section, the Special Rapporteur addresses the principle of non-refoulement and the use of diplomatic assurances, or formal guarantees, between Governments that a person to be returned will not be subjected to torture, ill-treatment or the death penalty and will be afforded the right to a fair trial. A. The non-refoulement principle in the jurisprudence of international human rights mechanisms 30. One of the bedrock principles of international law is the express prohibition against refoulement of persons to where there are substantial grounds to believe that there is a risk of torture. This principle has already been dealt with by the Special Rapporteur’s predecessors in previous reports to the General Assembly.26 However, in the present report the Special Rapporteur would like to place emphasis on recent decisions reached by international human rights mechanisms on this matter. 31. Article 3 of the Convention against Torture states clearly and unequivocally that “No State Party shall expel, return (‘refouler’) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture”. 32. In general comment No. 20 (1992), the Human Rights Committee also interpreted article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to cover the principle of non-refoulement by stipulating that “... States 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 their extradition, expulsion or refoulement” (para. 9). The non-refoulement principle is also firmly anchored in article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. 33. In May 2005, the Committee against Torture, in its concluding observations on the report of Canada, expressed its concern at “the failure of the Supreme Court of Canada, in Suresh v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, to recognize at the level of domestic law the absolute nature of the protection of article 3 of the Convention, which is not subject to any exception whatsoever.”27 Furthermore, 9