2.3.7.1 Diplomatic assurances The decision in Chahal v UK cannot be interpreted as implying that the Court will disregard diplomatic assurances in all such cases. Many authors cite Mamatkulov and Askarov v Turkey as an authority that the Court will accept diplomatic assurances in certain circumstances, but in fact the Court did not explicitly address the issue.433 Rather, it merely noted the existence of the diplomatic assurance, and concluded, based on all the material before it, that the applicants had not shown a personal risk of being subjected to torture.434 In the case of Saadi v Italy, Tunisia refused to give assurances requested by Italy against torture and other ill-treatment.435 However, the Court noted that even if such assurances had been given, “that would not have absolved the Court from the obligation to examine whether such assurances provided, in their practical application, a sufficient guarantee that the applicant would be protected against the risk of treatment prohibited by the Convention [citing Chahal]. The weight to be given to assurances from the receiving State depends, in each case, on the circumstances obtaining at the material time.”436 2 The European Regional System In Chahal v UK, discussed above, the UK had sought and received an assurance from the Indian government that, if the applicant were extradited, “he would enjoy the same legal protection as any other Indian citizen, and… would have no reason to expect to suffer mistreatment of any kind at the hands of the Indian authorities.”431 While the Court did not doubt that this assurance was given in good faith, it noted that violations by the security forces in India were an enduring problem, despite the efforts of the government and judiciary. The Court therefore found that extraditing the applicant would be in breach of Article 3, regardless of the existence of the assurance.432 It should be noted that, under Protocol 6, Council of Europe member States are prohibited from expelling or extraditing any person to face the death penalty. In Aylor-Davis v France, it was held that guarantees from the receiving country, the United States, eliminated the risk of the applicant being sentenced to death, and thus that France would not break the prohibition if it extradited the applicant.437 Chahal v UK (1996), op. cit., §37. Ibid. §105. 433 Mamatkulov and Askarov v Turkey (2005), op. cit. 434 Ibid. §76-77. 435 Saadi v Italy, no. 37201/06, judgement of 28 February 2008. 436 Ibid., §148. 437 Aylor-Davis v France, No. 22742/93, judgement of 20 January 1994. 431 432 89