home and there was no treatment whatsoever for HIV/AIDS. The Court ruled that to deport someone under such circumstances would amount to inhuman and degrading treatment.419 The case law of the Court is reflected in the Council of Europe Guidelines on Human Rights and the Fight against Terrorism. In the context of refoulement and deportation, where relevant, Guideline XII states that: 2. It is the duty of a State that has received a request for asylum to ensure that the possible return (“refoulement”) of the applicant to his/her country of origin or to another country will not expose him/her to the death penalty, to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The same applies to expulsion. […] 4. In all cases, the enforcement of the expulsion or return (“refoulement”) order must be carried out with respect for the physical integrity and for the dignity of the person concerned, avoiding any inhuman or degrading treatment. Guideline XIII, concerning extradition, points out that: 2. The extradition of a person to a country where he/she risks being sentenced to the death penalty may not be granted. A requested State may however grant an extradition if it has obtained adequate guarantees that: (i) the person whose extradition has been requested will not be sentenced to death; or (ii) in the event of such a sentence being imposed, it will not be carried out. 3. Extradition may not be granted when there is serious reason to believe that: (i) the person whose extradition has been requested will be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; (ii) the extradition request has been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of his/her race, religion, nationality or political opinions, or that that person’s position risks being prejudiced for any of these reasons. 4. When the person whose extradition has been requested makes out an arguable case that he/she has suffered or risks suffering a flagrant denial of justice in the requesting State, the requested State must consider the well-foundedness of that argument before deciding whether to grant extradition. 419 “It is true that this principle has so far been applied by the Court in contexts in which the risk to the individual of being subjected to any of the proscribed forms of treatment emanates from intentionally inflicted acts of the public authorities in the receiving country or from those of non-State bodies in that country when the authorities there are unable to afford him appropriate protection […] Aside from these situations and given the fundamental importance of Article 3 in the Convention system, the Court must reserve to itself sufficient flexibility to address the application of that Article in other contexts which might arise. It is not therefore prevented from scrutinising an applicant’s claim under Article 3 where the source of the risk of proscribed treatment in the receiving country stems from factors which cannot engage either directly or indirectly the responsibility of the public authorities of that country, or which, taken alone, do not in themselves infringe the standards of that Article. To limit the application of Article 3 in this manner would be to undermine the absolute character of its protection. In any such contexts, however, the Court must subject all the circumstances surrounding the case to a rigorous scrutiny, especially the applicant’s personal situation in the expelling State”, ECtHR, D. v. UK, Case no. 146/1996/767/964, 21 April 1997, para. 49. Countering Terrorism, Protecting Human Rights 145