REFOULEMENT PROTECTION IN THE EXTRADITION CONTEXT  As extradition requests may raise refoulement considerations under UNCAT, many States have expressly legislated to prohibit extradition in such circumstances, or have incorporated clauses in bilateral or multilateral extradition treaties and agreements to comply with their obligations under Article 3 UNCAT. Where there is a conflict between extradition obligations and protection against refoulement under UNCAT, the principle of non‑refoulement prevails as an absolute prohibition. Constitutional or legislative provisions Mozambique: constitutional protection Article 67(3) of the Constitution of Mozambique expressly bars extradition “when there are grounds to believe that the extradited person may be subjected to torture or inhumane, degrading or cruel treatment.” Namibia: extradition legislation prohibits refoulement The Extradition Act of 1996 prohibits the return of a person to a State where that individual would be at risk of being subjected to the death penalty, torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. The Act likewise specifically prohibits refoulement if it would be in conflict with Namibia’s obligations under any international instrument. Poland: penal procedure code protects against refoulement in the extradition context The Code of Penal Procedure 1997 bars extradition when there is a reasonable suspicion that the State seeking extradition could impose capital punishment or subject the extradited person to torture. Tunisia: anti-terrorism law provides refoulement protection in the extradition context Article 88 of the Law No. 26 of 2015 provides, “extradition shall not be granted if there are real grounds to believe that the person who is the subject of the extradition request risks being tortured or that the extradition request is intended to prosecute or punish a person because of the person’s race, colour, origin, religion, sex, nationality or political ideas.” Judicial procedures The enforceability of the refoulement prohibition in the context of extradition varies among countries, depending on domestic procedures. Under UNCAT, however, domestic procedures must ensure that individuals subject to an extradition request are able to challenge their extradition on refoulement grounds. In turn, this means that individuals subject to extradition requests must ultimately have access to an independent, impartial, competent and effective judicial authority to challenge their extradition on refoulement grounds. Madagascar: judicial review of extradition decisions Article 19 of the National Law against Torture (Loi N°2008-008 du 25 juin 2008 contre la torture et autres peines ou traitements cruels, inhumains ou dégradants) stipulates that no person shall be extradited by the Malagasy authorities to a State where he or she is at risk of being subjected to torture. Any extradition decision taken by the Minister of Justice is preceded by a judicial review conducted by the Court of Appeal, which includes consideration of the compliance of any prospective extradition with Madagascar’s obligations under international instruments. TOOL: Non-refoulement procedures and safeguards 10/13