102 Report of the Eminent Jurists Panel on terrorism, counter-terrorism and human rights expulsion as part of their preventive counter-terrorist strategy. The arguments for reversing fifty years of human rights protection vary: • some argue that the interests of society overall (the majority) must be balanced against the rights of an individual, who may or may not be tortured on return;242 • some argue that, in seeking diplomatic assurances from the receiving government that the individual concerned will not be tortured or otherwise seriously abused, they sufficiently discharge their duties under the non-refoulement principle; • some argue that the non-refoulement prohibition attaches to torture but not to “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment”, that they make careful distinctions in such matters when determining on cases of refoulement, and that risks should be decided on the basis of “more likely than not”; • some just ignore their duties to comply with the non-refoulement principle (see Middle East Hearing), particularly when the principle of nonrefoulement is not provided for in bilateral or multilateral initiatives (see Russian Federation Hearing with reference to the Shanghai Cooperation Agreement). The Panel recognises that difficult issues are often at stake. Non-refoulement is sometimes seen by governments as an impediment to fighting effectively against terrorism; it would, however, be more correct to say that torture, and other serious human rights violations, are an impediment to refoulement. The Panel thinks it is important to forcefully reiterate that the principle of nonrefoulement, under universal human rights law, goes beyond the prohibition on torture and covers a range of other serious human rights violations; that any transfer to countries where there is a “real and substantial risk” of such violations is prohibited; and that States must interpret multilateral agreements in the context of international human rights law. Some governments have argued that there is a need for a “balancing” of competing rights; some contributors raised the question of “diplomatic assurances” in the Hearings, so the Panel has explored these two issues in more detail below. A balancing of rights in the practice of non-refoulement? In the case of Saadi v. Italy 243 before the European Court of Human Rights, a number of States (the United Kingdom, Lithuania, Portugal and Slovakia as interveners, 242 See in particular the position in Canada (discussion follows). 243 ECtHR, Judgment of 28 February 2008, Saadi v. Italy, Application No. 37201/06; Observations of the Governments of Lithuania, Portugal, Slovakia and the United Kingdom, intervening in Application No. 25424/05; Decision of 27 May 2008, Ramzy v. the Netherlands, Application No. 25424/05.