“… States parties should refrain from deporting individuals to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that they would be in danger of being subjected to torture or other ill-treatment at the hands of non-State entities, including groups that are unlawfully exercising actions that inflict severe pain or suffering for the purposes prohibited by the Convention, and over which the receiving State has no or only partial de facto control, or whose acts it is unable to prevent or whose impunity it is unable to counter.” (at para 30) This passage accurately describes the non-refoulment obligation. However, it does not address the question whether the conduct of such non-State entities might constitute torture within article 1 if they are quasi-governmental entities performing governmental functions. More generally, the General Comments do not provide any support for the reading of article 1 for which the appellant contends. 45. It is also necessary to address a submission on behalf of the prosecution that the General Comments taken as a whole demonstrate that the actions of non-State actors can be considered as acts impermissible under UNCAT. Here it is submitted that “if the interpretation of article 1 advanced by the appellant is correct (namely that it only applies to State actors or those acting with the approval or acquiescence of the State) then there would be no obligation on the State to punish acts of torture which violate the Convention committed by non-State officials in areas outside the State’s control” (emphasis in original). The prosecution relies in particular on the following passage in General Comment No 2: “18. The Committee has made clear that where State authorities or others acting in an official capacity or under colour of law, know or have reasonable grounds to believe that acts of torture or ill-treatment are being committed by nonState officials or private actors and they fail to exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate, prosecute and punish such non-State officials or private actors consistently with the Convention, the State bears responsibility and its officials should be considered as authors, complicit or otherwise responsible under the Convention for consenting to or acquiescing in such impermissible acts. Since the failure of the State to exercise due diligence to intervene to stop, sanction and provide remedies to victims of torture facilitates and enables non-State actors to commit acts impermissible under the Convention with impunity, the State’s indifference or inaction provides a form of encouragement and/or de facto permission. The Committee has applied this principle to States parties’ failure to prevent and protect victims from genderPage 22