and legally accessible to the individuals? Does the risk emanate from State or non-State actors? Can the individuals lead a relatively normal life without facing undue hardship in the alternative location concerned? If the individuals concerned would in fact be compelled to return to, including transiting through, the site where they face a real risk of torture or other ill-treatment in the State of transfer or to another part of the country where serious harm may be a possibility, then the internal flight/relocation alternative is not viable because it would result in constructive refoulement. is not admissible unless the Committee has received reliable information, before the enforcement of the deportation, that the State of deportation has taken effective measures able to guarantee full and sustainable protection of the rights of the person concerned. The duty is on the States parties wishing to forcibly transfer the individual to identify the proposed site of relocation. The individual concerned is entitled to put forward reasons he or she may have that indicate that either: a) the internal flight alternative in fact would not be viable in the sense that they would still face a real risk of torture or other ill-treatment (original, new or both) at the proposed internal location, or b) that relocation to the site identified would nonetheless be unreasonable. The safety and security in the site of relocation must be durable, predictable and stable. Paragraph 52 52. The State of deportation transfer referred to in the previous paragraph should in particular have taken measures to prevent torture, throughout the territory under its jurisdiction and control, such as implementing clear legislative provisions on the absolute prohibition of torture and its punishment with adequate penalties, measures to put an end to the impunity for acts of torture, violence and other illegal practices committed by public officials, the prosecution of public officials allegedly responsible for acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and their punishment commensurate with the gravity of the crime committed when they are found guilty. j) Section XI: Independence of assessment of the Committee i) Paragraph 55 93. We commend the inclusion in paragraph 55 of the principle of the benefit of the doubt. We recommend that the General Comment make an express reference to the benefit of the doubt as a principle that States parties are required to apply in considering non-refoulement claims under the Convention, as opposed to confining its consideration exclusively to the context of Article 22 communications. III. Additional Issue the General Comment should address a) Obligations to prevent refoulement, including transfers outside judicial processes 94. The General Comment should explicitly state that non-refoulement obligations arise whenever States parties know – or ought to know - that their action or inaction places an individual at risk of torture or other ill-treatment in violation of Article 3. Examples of such situations include: patterns of renditions within a State’s territory by another state or other actors; the use of airports as transit points for renditions, and renditions following the provision of intelligence information to a third party. 41 AI Index: IOR 40/6040/2017