decision to expel or remove, once that decision is made, when there is a plausible allegation that article 3 issues arise.”238 UN TREATY BODIES 1 – ICCPR The Human Rights Committee considers that States parties to the ICCPR “must not expose individuals to the danger of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment upon return to another country by way of their extradition, expulsion or refoulement.”239 This prohibition is wider than that under the UNCAT in that it extends to all forms of ill-treatment, but the jurisprudence of the HRC on this point is less plentiful than that of the CAT. In deciding whether deportation would violate Article 7, the HRC will consider whether extradition or expulsion would expose an individual to a real risk of ill-treatment, i.e. whether such ill-treatment would be a “necessary and foreseeable consequence” of deportation.240 However, the anguish inherent in leaving a State of long-term residence is insufficient on its own to constitute ill-treatment.241 Article 13 ICCPR provides: “An alien lawfully in the territory of a State Party to the present Covenant may be expelled therefrom only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law and shall, except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, be allowed to submit the reasons against his expulsion and to have his case reviewed by, and be represented for the purpose before, the competent authority or a person or persons especially designated by the competent authority.” The HRC allows the State party “very wide discretion” in the assessment of whether a case presents national security concerns.242 Thus, in a case involving rendition flights,243 the HRC found no breach of the author’s rights under this Article. However, in the same case, the Committee held that the right to an effective remedy under Articles 7 and 2 of the ICCPR requires that “effective review of a decision to expel to an arguable risk of torture must have an oppor Agiza v Sweden (2005), op. cit., §13.7. See also Arkauz Arana v France (1999), op. cit. HRC General Comment No. 20, 1992, §9. G.T. v Australia, HRC Communication No. 706/1996, 4 November 1997, §8.1, 8.6; A.R.J. v Australia, HRC Communication No. 692/1996, 28 July 1997, §6.8–6.9. 241 Canepa v Canada, HRC Communication No. 558/1993, 3 April 1997, §11.2. 242 Alzery v Sweden (2006), op. cit., §11.10. See also Borzov v Estonia, HRC Communication No. 1136/2002, 26 July 2004. 243 “Rendition” is the transfer of a person from one country to another, without any form of ordinary judicial or administrative process. 238 239 240 50