The Inter-american Regional System 3 Neither the Court nor the Commission has specifically addressed these provisions in its jurisprudence. However, the Commission did consider the principle of non-refoulement in The Haitian Centre for Human Rights and Others v United States.551 This case concerned the repatriation of Haitian citizens against their will by the United States. While the US has ratified neither the ACHR nor the IACPPT, the Commission nonetheless found that “the United States Government’s act of interdicting Haitians on the high seas, placing them in vessels under their jurisdiction, returning them to Haiti, and leaving them exposed to acts of brutality by the Haitian military and its supporters constitute[d] a breach of the right to security of the Haitian refugees” under Article I of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man.552 In its Report on the Situation of Human Rights of Asylum Seekers Within the Canadian Refugee Determination System, the Commission laid out some of the requirements which must be fulfilled before any expulsion is carried out.553 Once again, the Commission’s conclusions were based on the American Declaration Rights and Duties of Man, as Canada has also not ratified the ACHR and IACPPT. These requirements include access to judicial and administrative review of decisions, as well as a review of merits of individual cases and country situations, up to the point of removal.554 3.3.7.1 Diplomatic assurances The Inter-American Court and Commission have not yet considered a case involving diplomatic assurances. However, in his separate opinion in Goiburú and Others v Paraguay, Judge Cançado Trindade favourably referred to a report of the European Parliament which considered “unacceptable the practices of certain governments consisting in limiting their responsibilities by asking for diplomatic assurances from countries in respect of which there is strong reason to believe they practice torture.”555 Given this opinion, and the willingness of the Court to take inspiration from other international instances, should a case involving diplomatic assurances come before it, it seems probable that, in similar circumstances, the Inter-American Court would adopt a similar position Haitian Centre for Human Rights and Others v United States, IACommHR, Case 10675, Report No. 51/96, 13 March 1997. Ibid. §171. 553 IACommHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights of Asylum Seekers Within the Canadian Refugee Determination System, Inter-Am. C.H.R., OEA/Ser.L/V/II.106, Doc. 40 rev. (2000). 554 Ibid. §111-116. 555 Goiburú and Others v Paraguay (2006), op. cit., §58, citing European Parliament, doc. A6-0213/2006, pp. 1–6, §10. 551 552 122