may affect the ability of the person to disclose all relevant details or to relay a consistent account of their past torture throughout the proceedings. In order to ensure that victims of torture or other vulnerable persons are afforded an effective remedy, States parties should ensure that credibility assessment procedures take into account their specific circumstances and conditions, as it will often not be appropriate to follow a standardised credibility assessment process to determine the validity of a refoulement claim. Paragraph 45 “45. At the international level, Both for the State Party concerned and the Committee, the existence in the State where the individual is to be transferred of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights referred to in Article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention is considers crucial, to determine whether there are substantial grounds for believing that a person would be in danger of being subjected to torture or other ill-treatment upon transfer to such a State. the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights referred to in Article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention. These violations include.... and (g) the use of corporal punishment.” Paragraph 47 47. …, expulsion or extradition when the complainant presents credible facts that demonstrate that a substantial risk exists and where the State party fails to refute an arguable case of past torture or other illtreatment.” 48. The Committee will consider the risk as personal, present, foreseeable and real when the existence of the risk by itself, at the time of its decision, would affect the rights of the complainant under the Convention in case of his/her deportation. Indications of personal risk may include, but they are not limited to: (a) the complainant’s ethnic background; (b) political affiliation or political activities of the complainant and/or his family members; (c) peaceful activities of the complainant and/or his family members related to the protection and promotion of internationally recognised human rights; (d) arrest warrant without guarantee of a fair treatment and trial; (e) sentence in absentia; (f) sexual orientation and gender identity; (…) Paragraph 49 91. In light of our comments above, including on paragraphs 15 and 16, and our recommendation for the insertion of a new paragraph 8bis, underscoring that States parties are obligated to apply the measures required to prevent torture, including effective compliance with the prohibition of refoulement, equally to prevent other ill-treatment, as well as our recommended textual revisions to paragraph 29, we would advise that paragraph 49 be deleted in its entirety. It is beyond contention that past evidence of illtreatment is a strong indicator of a prospective real risk of ill-treatment, including torture. Recommended textual change: Delete paragraph 49 of the draft in its entirety. Paragraph 53 53. (c) Is there medical, psychological or other independent evidence to support a claim by the complainant that he/she has been tortured or ill-treated in the past? Has the torture had after-effects? Does the complainant need rehabilitation as a result of the past torture or ill-treatment? (d) … , in particular, to an independent medical and psychological examination according to the standards of the Istanbul Protocol and provided free of charge to assess his/her claims that he/she has previously suffered torture or ill-treatment in his/her country of origin? 39 AI Index: IOR 40/6040/2017