53. If it has been determined, in an individual case, that diplomatic assurances are a suitable means to obliterate the risk of persecution, this could form the basis for a rejection of the applicant’s claim only if the host authorities may in good faith consider such assurances reliable. If there are doubts as to whether the assurances will be respected, the reliability criterion would not be met. The onus of establishing that diplomatic assurances would be a suitable and reliable means to eliminate all forms of persecution which the individual concerned is reasonably likely to face lies on the decision-making authority, not on the applicant. 75 54. In assessing the reliability of diplomatic assurances in the refugee context, the decision-making authority must examine the practice in the country concerned, including with regard to previous undertakings to permit monitoring by the authorities of the sending country. 76 Given the many different ways in which persecution may manifest itself, the above-described concerns about the extent to which monitoring may provide a safeguard against torture and other forms of ill-treatment are all the more pertinent where an individual is in danger of being persecuted upon removal. In such cases, effective monitoring will only be possible in those cases where the risk of persecution facing the applicant is limited to certain, precisely defined measures. 77 55. Moreover, where it is established that an asylum-seeker has already suffered persecution in the country which he or she fled, assurances by the authorities that were responsible, either directly or indirectly, for such previous persecution should not be considered reliable. In such cases, similar considerations would apply as for diplomatic assurances given with regard to recognized refugees. 78 *** 75 See also above at paragraph 49. See above at paragraph 21. 77 See above at paragraph 26. 78 See above at paragraph 30. 76 20