Article 3. Principle of Non-Refoulement 103 the view that extradition would be ‘inconceivable unless the requested State believes that the person extradited will be given a proper trial by a court affording guarantees of fair judgement and that he will be detained in humane conditions’. The representative stated that, frequently, recourse to torture occurs in situations of domestic turmoil, in which the fate of individuals becomes very uncertain, particularly as a result of the suspension of constitutional rights and freedoms and that since the aim of a future Convention was not to create new categories of victims but to ensure the equitable punishment of the perpetrators of acts of torture, steps should be taken to prevent the alleged offenders from being subjected to the rigours of summary justice as a result of extradition.18 17 The UK suggested that the criteria for extradition should be more precise and therefore proposed the words ‘reasonable grounds to believe that he may be in danger of being’ should be replaced by ‘substantial grounds for believing that he would be . . .’.19 18  The 1979 Working Group further discussed Article 4 of the original Swedish draft without reaching any conclusions. Subsequently, the Swedish delegate presented a revised draft20 of the provision, which then became Article 3.21 19  This article gave rise to considerable discussion, much of which was a reiteration of the written comments submitted by States (above). The idea of having a provision prohibiting expulsion and extradition in certain circumstances received wide, although not general, support.22 Switzerland, considering that the aim of the Convention was not to create new categories of victims but to ensure the equitable punishment of the perpetrators of acts of torture, felt that steps should be taken to prevent the alleged offenders from being subjected to summary justice as a result of extradition and consequently favoured the retention of Article 3.23 Regarding the question as to whether or not this provision would create problems in relation to already existing extradition treaties, Austria suggested the inclusion of another article stipulating that States parties should re-​examine extradition treaties already in force to determine their conformity with this article. Spain considered problematic the specific case of existing extradition treaties with States suspected of practising torture but who were not States parties to the Convention, since the latter Convention would necessarily prevent mandatory extradition under such extradition treaties. The Working Group agreed that it would be preferable not to include an exception for such cases in the text of the article lest such a limitation be interpreted as encouraging extradition to countries where the person concerned would be subject to torture. It was therefore proposed that the following remark be included in the report of the Commission: Some delegates indicated that their States might wish, at the time of signature or ratification of the Convention or accession thereto, to declare that they did not consider themselves bound by Article 3 18   Summary by the Secretary-​General in Accordance with Commission Resolution 18 (XXXIV) of the Commission on Human Rights (1978) UN Doc E/​CN.4/​1314, para 60. 19   Summary by the Secretary-​General in Accordance with Resolution 18 (XXXIV) of the Commission on Human Rights (1979) UN Doc E/​CN.4/​1314/​Add.1, para 8. 20   E/​CN.4/​WG.1/​WP.1 (n  16). 21   J Herman Burgers and Hans Danelius, The United Nations Convention against Torture: A Handbook on the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Martinus Nijhoff 1988) 49. 22 23  ibid.   ibid 50. Ammer/Schuechner