in danger of being subjected to torture, all relevant considerations must be taken into account, 38 the Special Rapporteur expressed the view that: “in circumstances where there is a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights, or of systematic practice of torture, the principle of nonrefoulement must be strictly observed and diplomatic assurances should not be resorted to.” 39 25. The Special Rapporteur further stated that in situations where there may not be a pattern, but where there is a risk of torture or other forms of ill-treatment in the individual case, 40 the use of diplomatic assurances should not be ruled out a priori. It is essential, however, that “such assurances contain an unequivocal guarantee that the person concerned will not be subjected to torture or any other form of ill-treatment, and that a system to monitor the treatment of that person has been put into place.” 41 For this to be the case, diplomatic assurances should fulfil a number of essential requirements in terms of protection from torture and other forms of ill-treatment in order to make them 38 Special Rapporteur on Torture, Report of 1 September 2004, above footnote 5, at paragraph 35. 39 Ibid., at paragraph 37. The Special Rapporteur recalls the definition of the Committee Against Torture as regards the “systematic practice of torture: that is, where acts of torture have not occurred fortuitously in a particular case or at a particular time, but are seen to be habitual, widespread and deliberate in at least a considerable part of the territory of the country in question.” He also noted that torture may be systematic even if this is not the direct intention of a Government, but rather results from factors beyond the control of the Government (at paragraph 36). Similarly, in its Resolution on the Transfer of Persons, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/L.12, 4 August 2005, the Sub-Commission on the Promotion of Human Rights “confirms that where torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is widespread or systematic in a particular State, especially where such practice has been determined to exist by a human rights treaty body or a special procedure of the Commission on Human Rights, there is a presumption that any person subject to transfer would face a real risk of being subjected to such treatment and recommends that, in such circumstances, the presumption shall not be displaced by any assurance, undertaking or other commitment made by the authorities of the State to which the individual is to be transferred” (at paragraph 4). 40 In determining whether or not this is the case, the sending State must examine both the prevailing situation in the receiving State and the individual circumstances and vulnerability of the individual whose removal is at stake, including experiences of torture or other forms of illtreatment in the past, and the possibility that he or she may be at risk of persecution or systematic discrimination amounting to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment on account of his or her belonging to any identifiable group. See Special Rapporteur on Torture, Report of 1 September 2004, above footnote 5, at paragraphs 34 and 38– 39. 41 Ibid., at paragraph 40, with reference to the report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture to the General Assembly during its 57th Session, U.N. Doc. A/57/173, 2 July 2002, at paragraph 35. 11