rendering the Committee’s final decision on the merits futile and devoid of object.     iv) Paragraphs 40-53 88. The guidance value and clarity of these paragraphs would be enhanced by making the following points explicit in the draft: while applicable to communications under Article 22 of the Convention alleging violations of the prohibition of refoulement, the content of this section, entitled Merits, is of wider application, going beyond Article 3 exclusively in the context of individual communication under Article 22. Indeed, this section of the present General Comment provides critical guidance to States parties on the effective implementation of their non-refoulement obligations under the Convention as a whole. See also our comments at the very outset of the present submission; where an individual makes an arguable case of past torture or other ill-treatment as evidence of a prospective real risk of such treatment upon transfer, the burden of proof would ordinarily shift to the State party to credibly assert why in the face of such evidence the transfer would not violate the prohibition of refoulement in the Convention; given States parties’ obligation to adapt the process and procedures used to assess refoulement claims to take account of any particular circumstances of vulnerability of – and/or specific risks faced by – the person concerned, the draft should more clearly outline the relevant and appropriate guarantees and safeguards that should be afforded to vulnerable persons, including survivors of torture or other ill-treatment; survivors of torture must have access to rehabilitation services to enable them to engage effectively in the proceedings and to avoid re-traumatization. Further, the specific psychological trauma that survivors of torture may suffer and how this impacts on their ability to present a coherent and consistent account should be expressly addressed in the draft. 89. Defending and promoting respect for human rights is often a high-risk activity, and groups and individuals who commit themselves to protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms are often targeted by State authorities and private groups. Every year, hundreds of human rights defenders are victims of threats, attacks, arrests, arbitrary detentions, imprisonment, torture and even murder, in retaliation for their activities to defend and promote human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international and regional instruments. When preventive and protection measures for personal security are not enough, relocation outside the country of origin sometimes emerges as a necessary measure to protect human rights defenders, and enable them to continue their work. In this context, it is important that in asylum and deportation proceedings previous or ongoing human rights work of the person concerned and the situation of human rights defenders be included among the risk factors that States parties are required to consider.123 Harassment and persecution of human rights defenders may also continue when they are abroad, often taking the form of trials in absentia leading to requests for extradition, which, in turn, aim at securing jurisdiction over defenders who reside abroad. 90. Human rights defenders who are forcibly returned to their countries of origin or habitual residence have a heightened risk of exposure to torture or other ill-treatment. In light of the above, we recommend the following textual changes to paragraphs 40, 42, 43, 47, 48, 52, 53(c), (d), (h) and (i) 123 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, UN Doc. A/HRC/31/55 (1 February 2016), para. 75. 37 AI Index: IOR 40/6040/2017