A/59/324 this respect, the Special Rapporteur recalls the opinion of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Chahal v. the United Kingdom, in which the Court stated that “the prohibition provided by article 3 [of the European Convention on Human Rights] against ill-treatment is absolute in expulsion cases. Thus, whenever substantial grounds have been shown for believing that an individual would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 if removed to another State, the responsibility of the Contracting State to safeguard him or her against such treatment is engaged in the event of expulsion … In these circumstances, the activities of the individual in question, however undesirable or dangerous, cannot be a material consideration.”7 29. The Special Rapporteur is seriously concerned about an increase in practices that undermine this principle. One such practice is for the police authorities of one country to hand over persons to their counterparts in other countries without the intervention of a judicial authority and without any possibility for the persons concerned to contact their families or their lawyers. The Committee against Torture, while recognizing the need for close cooperation between States in the fight against crime and for effective measures to be agreed upon for that purpose, found that practice to be in violation of article 3 of the Convention, as well as of the right to due process.8 In this regard, the Special Rapporteur wishes also to express his agreement with the views propounded by the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe that, in cases where the risk of torture and ill-treatment is elevated, it is particularly important that proceedings leading to expulsion respect appropriate legal safeguards, at the very least a hearing before a judicial instance and the right to appeal. 30. Another practice that is increasingly undermining the principle of nonrefoulement is the reliance on assurances, sought by the sending country from the receiving country, that transferred suspects will not be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Special Rapporteur is not of the opinion that requesting and obtaining assurances as a precondition for the transfer of persons under terrorist or other charges should be ruled out altogether. In fact, in his report to the General Assembly at its fifty-seventh session he appealed to all States to ensure that, in all appropriate circumstances, before extraditing persons under terrorist or other charges, the receiving State has provided an unequivocal guarantee to the extraditing authorities that the persons concerned will not be subjected to torture or any other form of ill-treatment, and that a system to monitor the treatment of such persons has been put into place to ensure that they are treated with full respect for their human dignity (A/57/173, para. 35). 31. However, since the Special Rapporteur submitted his report to the General Assembly two years ago, he has come across a number of instances where there were strong indications that diplomatic assurances were not respected and that transferred persons allegedly were treated in violation of the absolute prohibition of torture and other forms of ill-treatment (see E/CN.4/2004/56/Add.1, para. 1827). The issue arises of whether the practice of resorting to assurances is not becoming a politically inspired substitute for the principle of non-refoulement which, it must not be forgotten, is absolute and non-derogable. The problematic nature of relying on diplomatic assurances was clearly pointed out by the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe: “The weakness inherent in the practice of diplomatic assurances lies in the fact that where there is a need for such assurances, there is clearly an acknowledged risk of torture and ill-treatment. Due to the 9