E/CN.4/2002/137 page 6 Similarly, article 3 of the 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment provides that “[n]o 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”. It is submitted that the principle contained in the Human Rights Committee’s statement and the above provision of the Convention against Torture represents an inherent part of the overall fundamental obligation to avoid contributing in any way to a violation of the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. It must be emphasized that the protection offered by the principle of non-refoulement is of an imperative nature. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur notes the findings of the Committee against Torture to the effect that “the nature of the activities in which the person engaged is not a relevant consideration in the taking of a decision in accordance with article 3 of the Convention”12 and that article 3 applies “irrespective of whether the individual concerned has committed crimes and the seriousness of those crimes”.13 15. This review of the non-derogability of the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment can no better be summed up than by quoting the following repeated and unambiguous pronouncement of the Commission: “condemns all forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, which can never be justified under any circumstances whatsoever”.14 The Special Rapporteur concludes that the legal and moral basis for the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is absolute and imperative and must under no circumstances yield or be subordinated to other interests, policies and practices. II. ACTIVITIES OF THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR 16. The Special Rapporteur continues, like his predecessor, to receive information concerning the situation of individuals who are reportedly at risk of being tortured or being subjected to other forms of ill-treatment. Since his appointment, the Special Rapporteur has followed the established practice of sending, either in his own name or in appropriate cases jointly with other holders of Commission mandates, urgent appeals seeking clarification of the situation of the persons concerned and requesting the authorities to take the necessary measures to ensure that the persons concerned are treated humanely. 17. With respect to requests for visits in situ, the Special Rapporteur, taking into account requests made earlier by his predecessor, expressed in letters dated 25 January 2002 his interest in undertaking such visits, within the framework of his mandate, to the following countries: Algeria, Egypt, Georgia, India, Indonesia, Israel, Nepal, the Russian Federation with respect to the Republic of Chechnya, Tunisia and Uzbekistan. He also responded with interest to invitations received by his predecessor from the Governments of Bolivia, Equatorial Guinea and Togo, as well as the invitation reiterated to him by the Government of China. 18. In paragraph 9 of its resolution 2001/62, the Commission on Human Rights requested the Special Rapporteur to study the situation of trade and production in equipment which is specifically designed to inflict torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, its origin, destination and forms, with a view to finding the best ways to prohibit such trade and production and to combat its proliferation, and report thereon to the Commission. Accordingly, on