101 Article 3. Principle of Non-Refoulement concerned,12 referral of the person alleging previous torture to an independent medical examination free of charge, in accordance with the Istanbul Protocol; or training of relevant personnel.13 9 Article 3(1) contains an explicit prohibition of refoulement. It demands ‘substantial grounds’ for believing that a torture risk for the person facing deportation exists. Article 3(2) stipulates that the ‘competent authorities’ of States parties must thereby take ‘all relevant considerations’ into account. In the following, this article analyses the following distinct elements: 1. Forms of prohibited conduct (‘expel, return (“refouler”) or extradite’) if substantial grounds exist that a torture risk exists upon return (see below, 3.2). 2. The meaning of ‘a person’ (see below, 3.3). 3. The meaning of ‘to another State’ (see below, 3.4). 4. The question of the particular treatment that the person would be subjected to in the case of expulsion, return or extradition to another State: Is the scope of Article 3 CAT limited to torture alone as defined in Article 1 CAT, or does the prohibition extend to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in accordance with Article 16 CAT? How does the Committee deal with cases in which the applicant risks being subjected to torture which is defined as a ‘lawful sanction’ by the receiving State? What about a risk of torture posed by non-​governmental actors in the receiving State? (see below, 3.5). 5. The question as to the probability of the torture risk: what is the time of the risk assessment? How does the Committee interpret the phrase ‘would be in danger of being subjected to torture’? What are the relevant factors for the risk assessment? What role does the human rights situation in the receiving State play? Are ‘internal flight alternatives’ or diplomatic assurances of relevance under Article 3? (see below, 3.6). 6. The standard of proof/​evidence applied in assessing the risk of danger of torture: what is the standard of proof that can be reasonably applied? Who bears the burden of proof and when does the burden of proof shift? What is the procedure by domestic authorities and by the Committee? (see below, 3.7) 2.  Travaux Préparatoires 2.1 Chronology of Draft Texts 10  IAPL Draft (15 January 1978)14 Article IV The Contracting Parties undertake to adopt legislative, judicial, administrative and other measures necessary to give effect to this convention to prevent and suppress torture, and in particular to ensure that: 12   eg the right to an individual assessment of a case, to be informed of the reasons why being subject of a deportation procedure and of the rights to appeal such decision; access to a lawyer, to free legal aid when necessary; procedure in a language the person understands, or with the assistance of interpreters and translators; right of appeal against a deportation order to an independent administrative and/​or judicial body within a reasonable period of time and with suspensive effect. See CAT/​C/​GC/​4 (n 2) para 18. 13   eg effective training of officials dealing with persons under deportation procedures about Article 3; effective training of medical and other personnel in identifying and documenting signs of torture, taking into account the Istanbul Protocol. See CAT/​C/​GC/​4 (n 2) para 18. 14  Draft Convention for the Prevention and Suppression of Torture Submitted by the International Association of Penal Law (1978) UN Doc E/​CN.4/​NGO/​213. Ammer/Schuechner