Documenting past torture Good State practices provide an opportunity for individuals who allege they have been tortured in the past, and where that past torture has a bearing on their current claim, to undertake a medical examination in line with the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, known as the Istanbul Protocol. United Kingdom: using the Istanbul Protocol to provide evidence in court In the United Kingdom, the courts have commended the medical reporting guidance featured in the Istanbul Protocol concerning evidence of torture. A unified procedure with refugee status determination In many countries, national refugee status determination procedures are the most common way in which the prohibition against refoulement with respect to torture or other ill-treatment is given practical effect, as persons at risk of torture are often refugees. However, recognising that not all victims of torture will qualify for refugee status, States have increasingly complemented refugee status determination procedures with assessments relating specifically to the risk of torture or other illtreatment. Some States have found it useful and practical to streamline procedures into a single, unified procedure (that is, “a one-stop shop”), which empowers the decisionmaking authority to evaluate all possible (human rights and refugee) grounds for opposing a transfer or removal, including protection against refoulement under UNCAT. A refugee is defined by the UN 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, as amended by its 1967 Protocol, as someone, who, among other things, “owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.” The UNHCR Statute of 1950 provides a similar definition, GA resolution 428(V), 14 December 1950. Austria: independent administrative body assesses all requests In Austria, an independent administrative body was set up on 1 January 2014 to deal with all issues relating to migrants, including both asylum-seekers and persons in an “irregular” situation. Its decisions take into account the principle of non‑refoulement, and can be challenged before the courts. Persons involved in proceedings before this body are assigned free legal counsel. Canada: single streamlined procedure Canada operates a single streamlined examination procedure to determine who is a refugee or “a person in need of protection”, which is defined, among other things, as a person whose return to their home country or the country where they normally live would subject them personally to: a danger of torture within the meaning of Article 1 UNCAT; or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. Protection is provided if the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) determines that, a permanent resident of Canada, a refugee, or a foreign national with a permanent resident visa – whose deportation from Canada has been ordered – is a “Convention refugee” or “a person in need of protection.” The IRB is an independent administrative tribunal that makes decisions on immigration and refugee matters. TOOL: Non-refoulement procedures and safeguards 4/13