paragraph 12 as suggested in bold below. We also reiterate our recommendation that the term “deportation” be replaced with “involuntary transfer”. Recommended textual changes: 12. Any person found to be at risk of torture if deported involuntarily transferred to a given State should be allowed to remain in the territory under the jurisdiction or actual control and authority of the State party concerned so long as the risk persists.9 If the person remains in its territory, the State party has a duty to provide that person with legal personality and status, and to take positive steps to facilitate local integration. [Move the rest to paragraph 12bis as set out below] 19. The clarity of paragraph 12 would be further enhanced by referencing the practice known as chain or indirect refoulement expressly and by providing specific guidance on this issue in a separate paragraph, namely paragraph 12bis. As currently formulated, although paragraph 12 addresses the issue, it does not explicitly state that the refoulement prohibition also applies in the context of so-called chain or indirect refoulement.21 In contrast, this Committee has expressly referred to chain refoulement in its Concluding Observations.22 20. In addition, we note that the current formulation in paragraph 12 asserts that the applicable threshold for indirect/chain refoulement is a certainty, namely, that a person “should never be deported to another State where he/she would face deportation to a third State in which he/she would be subjected to torture” (emphasis added). We respectfully recommend that this oversight be corrected as the threshold in cases involving chain refoulement remains the same as in cases of refoulement, i.e. ‘substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture’, more simply put, the threshold is and remains ‘a real risk’.23 In light of the above, we recommend that the text in bold below be inserted in the draft. Recommended textual addition 13(e); CAT, Concluding Observations: Cambodia, UN Doc CAT/C/KHM/CO/2, 20 Jan. 2011, para. 24. See also, CAT, Tebourski v. France, UN Doc CAT/C/38/D/300/2006, 11 May 2007, para. 8.5; CAT, Aemei v. Switzerland, UN Doc CAT/C/18/D/34/1995, 29 May 1997, para. 11; CAT, M.B.B. v. Sweden, UN Doc. CAT/C/22/D/104/1998, 21 June 1999, para. 6.4; and CAT, E.H. v. Hungary, UN Doc CAT/C/22/D/62/1996, 11 June 1999, para. 6.2. 21 This Committee has repeatedly held as much and the concept of indirect/chain refoulement is recognized in its original General Comment No. 1, which, inter alia, states “2. The Committee is of the view that the phrase “another State” in article 3 refers to the State to which the individual concerned is being expelled, returned or extradited, as well as to any State to which the author may subsequently be expelled, returned or extradited.” See CAT, General Comment No. 1: Implementation of Article 3 of the Convention in the Context of Article 22 (Refoulement and Communications), para. 2; see also, inter alia, CAT, Korban v. Sweden, UN Doc. CAT/C/21/D/1997, 16 Nov. 1998, para. 7; and CAT, Z.T. v Australia, UN Doc. CAT/C/31/D/153/2000, 11 Nov. 2003, para. 6.4. 22 For example, CAT, Concluding Observations: Greece, UN Doc. CAT/C/GRC/CO/5-6, 27 June 2012, “The Committee is concerned that these individuals are at a heightened risk of refoulement, including chain refoulement (art. 3)” where it recommended that the “State party should ensure full protection from refoulement by establishing the necessary safeguards in forced return procedures and thereby guarantee at all times that no person in need of international protection is returned to a country where he or she fears persecution or is in danger of being subjected to acts of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as well as chain refoulement.” (emphasis added), para. 19. 23 See for example, CAT, Z.T. v. Australia, CAT/C/31/D/153/2000, 11 November 2003, where the Committee found “for the purposes of article 3 of the Convention, a foreseeable, real and personal risk must exist of being tortured in the country to which a person is returned or, as in this case, a third country where it is foreseeable that he subsequently may be expelled”, para. 6.4 (emphasis added). 10 AI Index: IOR 40/6040/2017