and forms a rule of customary law and, as such, is binding on all states irrespective of whether or not they are party to the UN Refugee Convention.145 This prohibition of refoulement in international refugee law is complemented by refoulement prohibitions under human rights law, most notably the ICCPR and the UNCAT. While the UNCAT limits the principle to cases of torture, the ECtHR has also applied the non-refoulement principle to cases of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.146 The principle of non-refoulement is mentioned in the OSCE Action Plan,147 as well as in the UN Trafficking Protocol,148 the Council of Europe Trafficking Convention149 and the EU Trafficking Directive.150 The principle of non-refoulement does not, as such, represent a right to be granted asylum in a state. However, it means that for the removal of an individual from the territory of a state to be lawful, states must examine whether the removal would result in a breach of their non-refoulement obligations. Even if no request for asylum has been filed, states are still bound by their non-refoulement obligations. This is of particular importance for border guards and immigration officials when handling the cases of trafficked persons.151 In a case involving a victim or a presumed victim of trafficking, determining whether the principle of non-refoulement applies would require that the authorities take into account various factors concerning the nature of the persecution feared, as well as the willingness and capacity of the origin state to prevent and protect the individual in question from trafficking. Under UNCAT, the state cannot “expel, return or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being 145  See UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Advisory Opinion on the Extraterritorial Application of Non-Refoulement Obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, 26 January 2007, paras. 14-16; UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Note on Diplomatic Assurances and International Refugee Protection, 10 August 2006, para. 15; UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Declaration of States Parties to the 1951 Convention and or Its 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, 16 January 2002, HCR/MMSP/2001/09, preamble, para. 4; UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), “Summary Conclusions: the principle of non-refoulement”, in Erika Feller, Volker Turk and Frances Nicholson (eds.), Refugee Protection in International Law: UNHCR’s Global Consultations on International Protection (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 178; Nils Coleman, “Renewed Review of the Status of the Principle of Non-Refoulement as Customary International Law”, European Journal of Migration and Law, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2003, p. 23. 146  Although article 3 of the ECHR prohibits torture and other forms of ill-treatment, it does not refer to refoulement, while the ECtHR has still interpreted it as prohibiting return if an individual would face a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (see Trafficking in Human Beings Amounting to Torture and other Forms of Ill-treatment (Vienna: OSCE, 2013), pp. 28-29). 147  OSCE Action Plan, part V, para. 9.1 148  UN Trafficking Protocol, art. 14. 149  Council of Europe Trafficking Convention, art. 40. 150  Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/ JHA, 15 April 2011, 2011/36/EU (hereafter: EU Trafficking Directive), recital 10. 151  UNHCR et al., Prevent, Combat, Protect: Human Trafficking, p. 58 58 Part 2: Explanatory Report to the Principles