A/59/324 special examination by the Commission on Human Rights. It is clear from this wording that the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations in a country is not necessarily the only determining factor, that it may have to be assessed together with other relevant considerations, in particular those relating to the vulnerability of the person concerned. 36. When assessing the prevailing political conditions that have to be taken into account in connection with the non-refoulement principle, it is also advisable to refer to article 20 of the Convention against Torture which provides for a special inquiry by the Committee against Torture in cases where the Committee has received information containing well-founded indications that torture has been systematically practised. In this connection, the Special Rapporteur recalls the definition of the Committee against Torture as regards the “systematic” practice of torture: “torture is practised systematically when it is apparent that torture cases reported have not occurred fortuitously in a particular place or at a particular time, but are seen to be habitual, widespread and deliberate in at least a considerable part of the territory of the country in question. Torture may in fact be of a systematic character without resulting from the direct intention of a Government. It may be the consequence of factors which the Government has difficulty in controlling, and its existence may indicate a discrepancy between the policy as determined by the central Government and its implementation by the local administration. Inadequate legislation which in practice allows room for the use of torture may also add to the systematic nature of this practice.”11 37. The factors and circumstances contained in articles 3 and 20 of the Convention, in terms of a “consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights” and the “systematic practice of torture”, cover common ground, although the former term is broader in scope and not clearly defined. Thanks to the efforts of the Committee against Torture, the latter term provides, for present purposes, more concrete guidance, encompassing torture both as a State policy and as a practice by public authorities over which a Government has no effective control. In circumstances where this definition of “systematic practice of torture” applies, the Special Rapporteur believes that the principle of non-refoulement must be strictly observed and diplomatic assurances should not be resorted to. 38. As stated above, among the factors and circumstances to be taken into account are also the personal circumstances of the person whose removal is at stake. His or her vulnerability to torture or to other forms of ill-treatment must be a determining factor. As stated in General Comment No. 1 of the Committee against Torture on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention, one such factor is whether the person has already been tortured or maltreated by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in the (recent) past. Another factor is whether he or she has engaged in political or any other activity within or outside the State concerned that would make him or her particularly vulnerable to the risk of being in danger of torture were the person to be removed to the State in question. 39. The Special Rapporteur also wishes to draw attention to factors and circumstances that stem from conditions that may prevail in a country and touch at the same time upon the vulnerability of persons whose removal to such a country is at stake. Reference is made here to persons belonging to any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender or other grounds, such as sexual orientation, and who for that reason are targeted by the 11