The Committee applied its position in Alzery v Sweden.254 The facts in that case were substantially similar to those in the CAT case Agiza v Sweden, to which the HRC made explicit reference.255 The HRC found that, while the existence of diplomatic assurances may be taken into account in the evaluation of whether a real risk of torture or ill-treatment exists, such assurances must be reliable, and accompanied by monitoring and other measures for effective implementation.256 In this case, the assurances procured contained no mechanism for monitoring their enforcement, no other arrangements were made to ensure effective implementation, and the visits that did take place did not conform to international good practice, in that there was no private access to the detainee, and no recourse to medical and forensic expertise. Thus, the Committee found that the diplomatic assurances received were insufficient to eliminate the foreseeable risk of torture, so Sweden had breached Article 7. 1 UN TREATY BODIES Furthermore, the Committee explicitly recognised the limits of diplomatic assurances, stating that “the more systematic the practice of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the less likely it will be that a real risk of such treatment can be avoided by such assurances, however stringent any agreed follow-up procedures may be.”253 Conclusion The conclusions, recommendations and decisions of the treaty bodies are not legally binding in the strictest sense; they have only advisory power. However, treaty bodies have, over time, come to make fuller use of the flexibility inherent in this relatively limited power, expanding the definitions of torture and ill-treatment, the extent of State obligations, and scope of application of the prohibition. This is also a reflection of the progress made towards entrenchment of a human rights culture in every region of the world. The HRC, as the older of the two bodies, has been noticeably braver than the CAT in a number of the areas discussed above. The treaty bodies meet for only a few weeks per year, and therefore, while their influence is of vital importance, they can make only a limited contribution to the international jurisprudence on torture. Just as the treaty bodies inspire the regional mechanisms, much of the jurisprudence of the treaty bodies reflects Ibid. Alzery v Sweden (2006), op. cit. The author was also transferred from Sweden to Egypt on 18 December 2001 on an aircraft provided by the USA, with involvement of both US and Egyptian security agents. 256 Alzery v Sweden (2006), op. cit., §§11.3, 11.5. 253 254 255 53