Article 3 1. 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. 2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. Features: Duty not to expel individuals at risk of torture (non-refoulement), all relevant considerations assessed Interpretation § 1. States are obliged to refrain from transferring persons to another State where they would be at a personal risk of torture. This provision was inspired by the case-law of the European Commission of Human Rights with regard to Article 3 of the European Convention.83 Most of the individual cases dealt with by the CAT pursuant to Article 22 concern the application of Article 3 of the Convention. It is not necessary for the person at risk to be a political refugee under the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. The nature of the activities in which the person is engaged is not a relevant consideration, since the protection offered by Article 3 is absolute.84 This means that subjecting a person to a risk of torture cannot be justified on the basis of anything that person may or may not have done. There are no exceptions to the rule on non-refoulement85. Article 3 is confined in its application to cases where there are substantial grounds for believing that the person would be subjected to torture as defined in Article 1 of the Convention if expelled.86 A substantial ground for believing that a person would be at risk of torture means a factual one. The risk must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion, although it does not have to meet the test of being highly likely.87 The burden of proof is upon the potential victim to present an arguable case.88 The potential victim must establish that the danger of torture is personal and present.89 The potential victim must also establish that the grounds for believing so are substantial. II. INDIVIDUAL ANALYSIS OF ARTICLES 1–16 OF THE CONVENTION 2. ANALYSIS OF SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS Article 3 overrides any conflicting provisions of an extradition treaty which may have been concluded between the States. It is not necessary for the other State also to be a Party to the Convention. Future extradition treaties concluded between these States would breach the Convention if they contained provisions conflicting with it. 33