State should undertake legal and administrative or other (diplomatic) procedures for the return of the persons concerned to its territory, should the persons so wish. The return of the affected individuals to the State party’s jurisdiction may require measures including the provision of travel expenses;105 free legal assistance;106 provision of travel documents, for example a humanitarian visa107 and review of any previous request for asylum.108 If the affected individual is not immediately returned to the sending State, that State should determine the individual’s current whereabouts and state of well-being and ensure that the individual is not subjected to torture or other ill-treatment. where they have subsequently faced a substantial Where the victim continues to face a risk of being tortured or they have been tortured in the receiving State the sending State should provide all possible assistance, including legal, financial and diplomatic, in order to enable them to get access to judicial procedures empowered to put an end to the risk or that offence. To complement these measures, States parties should request independent international experts or organizations or national experts and institutions to carry out monitoring and follow-up visits to the persons concerned and facilitate their access to judicial remedies.109 g) Section VI: Article 3 of the Convention and extradition treaties (paragraphs 23-25) 64. The current formulation of this section may be understood as implying that for those States parties that concluded extradition treaties or agreements before ratifying the Convention, such treaties or agreements may take precedence and prevail over States parties’ non-refoulement obligations under the Convention. Such an understanding would ignore the jus cogens nature of the non-refoulement principle, as reflected in Article 3, and elaborated in our comments above. In light of this, the clarity and guidance value of this section would be enhanced by the following textual revisions: Recommended textual changes: i) Paragraph 23 23. States parties may find that a conflict arises between the obligations they have undertaken under Article 3 of the Convention and the obligations they have undertaken under a multilateral or bilateral extradition treaty, especially when the treaty was concluded before the ratification of the Convention with a State not party to the Convention and, therefore, not bound by the provisions of its Article 3. The Committee recalls that, under the Convention, States parties are required to give effect to their non-refoulement obligations, including, whenever necessary, by giving precedence to the said obligations and ensuring that they prevail over and above any obligation under any extradition treaty or agreement, whether multilateral or bilateral, and irrespective of the date of entry into force of the latter treaty or agreement, including when such a date precedes the signing, ratification of or accession to the Convention. Further, States parties should ensure that any extradition agreement or treaty, whether bilateral or multilateral, they wish to enter into must expressly provide for an exception to their obligations under such agreements or treaties based on non-refoulement grounds, consistent with the Convention. This exception should explicitly state that 105 See e.g, ECtHR, X v Switzerland, App. No. 16744/14, 26 Jan. 2017. Ibid. 107 Ibid. 108 See e.g., CAT, Concluding Observations: Sweden, UN Doc. CAT/C/SWE/CO/6-7, 12 Dec. 2014, para.11; HRC, H v. Denmark, UN Doc. CCPR/C/114/D/2370/2014, 18 March 2014, para. 10 (and follow up at HRC, 118th Session); ECtHR, X v Switzerland, App. No. 16744/14, 26 Jan. 2017. 109 CAT, Kalinichenko v. Morocco, UN Doc. CAT /C/ 47 /D/ 428 / 2010, 25 Nov. 2011, para. 17. 106 29 AI Index: IOR 40/6040/2017