in a safe country); and 4) individuals who are no longer at risk. These consequences should be factored into what may be understood as adequate and effective reparation for the Article 3 violation in any particular case. 48. This Committee has already identified that at least in cases where a victim has been subjected to torture or other ill-treatment following a violation of Article 3, the expelling State must comply with Article 14, as interpreted by General Comment 3. In this new General Comment, the Committee should further recognize that General Comment 3 provides essential guidance regarding the elements of the right to reparation in all cases where Article 3 has been violated. While the Committee’s early jurisprudence provided limited detail on the forms of reparation a victim is entitled to when Article 3 is violated, 76 more recent Committee decisions and observations recognize the importance of reparation in all its forms in such cases.77 For example, in Boily, the Committee called on the State to “provide effective redress, including”: compensation, rehabilitation, guarantees of non-recurrence, and determining the complainant’s whereabouts and state of wellbeing.78 (1) Access to an effective remedy – pre and post-return 49. Access to an effective remedy pre-return is a key safeguard against refoulement. Where an allegation of a potential violation of Article 3 is raised pre-return this Committee has confirmed that the right to an effective remedy contained in Article 3 requires “an opportunity for effective, independent and impartial review of the decision to expel or remove, once that decision is made.”79 This obligation is considered at paragraph 18(e) of the draft General Comment and in our comments on that paragraph (see above). 50. States Parties are also obligated to afford victims of Article 3 violations access to an effective remedy, post-return. This obligation arises in direct consequence of the breach of Article 3 and is also a precondition for the fulfilment of victims’ right to reparation. Victims face significant difficulties in accessing redress from the sending State when they are no longer on that State’s territory, including challenges to instruct lawyers, difficulties to lodge legal actions and to communicate with judicial or administrative bodies in the sending State as well as in obtaining evidence. In light of this, the General Comment should explain the obligation on States Parties to put in place accessible remedial mechanisms so that victims no longer in the territory can engage effectively with them. Paragraph 22 of the draft refers to “access to judicial procedures to put an end to that risk or that offence” however this phrase is ambiguous. The Committee should affirm that the sending State must take positive actions to adapt its procedures as necessary to ensure that these are fully accessible to all victims of Article 3 violations, including persons outside the jurisdiction.80 76 See e.g., CAT, Pelit v. Azerbaijan, UN Doc. CAT/C/38/D/281/2005, 5 June 2007, para. 13. See e.g., CAT, Boily v. Canada, UN Doc. CAT/C/47/D/327/2007, 13 January 2012, paras 14-16; CAT, Concluding Observations: Djibouti, UN Doc. CAT/C/DJI/CO/1, 22 Dec. 2011, para. 14. 78 CAT, Boily v. Canada, UN Doc. CAT/C/47/D/327/2007, 13 January 2012, paras 14-16. 79 CAT, Agiza v. Sweden, UN Doc. CAT/C/34/D/233/2003, 24 May 2005, para. 13.7. 80 See e.g., ECtHR, Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, App no. 71386/10, 25 April 2013, para. 253; ECtHR, Muminov v. Russia, App. no. 42502/06, 4 November 2010, para. 19; ECtHR, Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v. Poland, App. no. 7511/13, 16 February 2015. 77 24 AI Index: IOR 40/6040/2017