2. Removal on the basis of diplomatic assurances 20. The conditions under which the sending State is permitted to remove a person to another country on the basis of diplomatic assurances have been examined by international, regional and national courts in cases involving extradition to a risk of capital punishment or serious violations of fair trial as well as expulsion or deportation to a danger of torture or other forms of ill-treatment. The issue has also been addressed by human rights treaty bodies and experts mandated by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, among others. This has led to the development of clear criteria, and it is now well established that the sending State acts in keeping with its human rights obligations only if such assurances effectively remove the risk that the individual concerned will be subjected to violations of the rights guaranteed therein. Thus, diplomatic assurances may be relied upon only if they are (i) (ii) a suitable means to eliminate the danger to the individual concerned, and if the sending State may, in good faith, consider them reliable. 32 Whether or not this is the case must be established in each individual case, in light of all relevant information. 21. In determining the weight which may be attached to diplomatic assurances, the sending State must consider a number of factors, including the degree and nature of the risk to the individual concerned, the source of the danger for the individual, and whether or not the assurances will be effectively implemented. This will depend, inter alia, on whether the undertaking provided is binding on those State organs which are responsible for implementing certain measures or providing protection, and whether the authorities of the receiving State are in a position to ensure compliance with the assurances given. 33 The assessment must be made in light of the general human rights situation in the receiving State at the relevant time, and in particular, any practice with regard to diplomatic assurances or similar undertakings. 34 with international standards do not offer safeguards beyond the obligations of the States concerned under the treaties they are party to. See “Diplomatic Assurances” not an adequate safeguard for deportees, UN Special Rapporteur against Torture warns, United Nations Press Release, 23 August 2005. In its resolution on Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of 16 November 2005 (U.N. Doc. A/C.3/60/L.25/Rev.1), the General Assembly “[…] recognize[d] that diplomatic assurances, where used, do not release States from their obligations under international human rights, humanitarian and refugee law, in particular the principle of non-refoulement.” 32 See, for example, Committee Against Torture, Agiza v. Sweden, above footnote 29, at paragraphs 13.4 and 13.5; various decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, in particular the leading decision on extradition and human rights, Soering v. United Kingdom, above footnote 26, and, with regard to expulsion, Chahal v. United Kingdom, above footnote 26. 33 This would not be the case, for example, where the authorities of the receiving country, even if they have given assurances in good faith, may not be able to prevent human rights violations by certain members of the security forces. See European Court of Human Rights, Chahal vs. United Kingdom, above footnote 26, at paragraph 105. 34 See, for example, Committee Against Torture, Agiza v. Sweden, above footnote 29, at paragraphs 13.4 and 13.5. 9