concerned engaged cannot be a material consideration when making a determination under article 3 of the Convention” (A/52/44, annex V). See also, Human Rights Committee: “The State party should recognize the absolute nature of the prohibition of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, which in no circumstances can be derogated from. Such treatments can never be justified on the basis of a balance to be found between society’s interest and the individual’s rights under article 7 of the Covenant. No person, without any exception, even those suspected of presenting a danger to national security or the safety of any person, and even during a state of emergency, may be deported to a country where he/she runs the risk of being subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” (A/61/40 (vol. I), para. 76 (15)). 59 See, for example, the Report of the Committee against Torture (A/59/44, paras. 67, 126 and 144) and “Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture, Manfred Nowak” (E/CN.4/2006/6). 60 See Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (A/61/259, paras. 44–65). 61 Legal Consequences…, para. 111. 62 See also Commission on Human Rights resolution 2005/39: “… prolonged incommunicado detention or detention in secret places may facilitate the perpetration of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and can in itself constitute a form of such treatment, and urges all States to respect the safeguards concerning the liberty, security and the dignity of the person” (para. 9). 63 See, for example, Human Rights Committee, general comment N° 20 (1992), para. 6, and “Situation of detainees at Guantánamo Bay” (E/CN.4/2006/120, para. 53). 64 See E/CN.4/2005/103, para. 52. 65 See also European Court of Human Rights, Soering v. United Kingdom, N° 14038/88, Judgement of 7 July 1989. 66 See for example, European Court of Human Rights, Chahal v. United Kingdom, N° 22414/93, Judgement of 15 November 1996, and Louise Arbour, “In our name and on our behalf”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 55, N° 3 (July 2006), p. 511. 67 See, for example, European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), “Opinion on the international legal obligations of Council of Europe members States in respect of secret detention facilities and inter-State transport of prisoners”, 17–18 March 2006, Opinion N° 363/2005, CDL-AD(2006)009. 68 See, for example, “Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism” (A/HRC/4/88) and the High Commissioner’s statement on Human Rights Day, December 2005; and E/CN.4/2006/6, chap. III. See also Committee against Torture, views on communication N° 233/2003, Agiza v. Sweden, 20 May 2005 (A/60/44, annex VIII, sect. A), and Human Rights Committee, views on communication N° 1416/2005, Alzery v. Sweden, 25 October 2006 (A/62/40 (vol. II), annex VII). 69 See “Alleged secret detentions in Council of Europe member States” (“Marty Report”), AS/Jur (2006) 03 rev, and the follow-up report “Secret detentions and illegal transfers of detainees involving Council of Europe member States: second report”, Doc. 11302 rev.; “Secretary General’s report under article 52 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the question of secret detention and transport of detainees suspected of terrorist acts, notably by or at the instigation of foreign agencies” (SG/Inf (2006) 5, 28 February 2006) and his supplementary report on the subject (SG/Inf (2006) 13, 14 June 2006); Venice Commission, op. cit. 53