20. The prohibition of refoulement to a country where the person concerned would face a real risk of irreparable harm such as violations of the right to life or the right to be free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment extends to all persons who may be within a State’s territory or subject to its jurisdiction, including asylum seekers and refugees, 43 and applies with regard to the country to which removal is to be effected or any other country to which the person may subsequently be removed. 44 It is non-derogable and applies in all circumstances, 45 including in the context of measures to combat terrorism 46 and during times of armed conflict. 47 43 44 45 46 47 Vilvarajah et al. v. United Kingdom, Application No. 13163/87 et al., 30 October 1991; Chahal v. United Kingdom, Application No. 22414/93, 15 November 1996; Ahmed v. Austria, Application No. 25964/94, 17 December 1996; TI v. United Kingdom, Application No. 43844/98 (Admissibility), 7 March 2000. In the Americas, see, for example, Article 22(8) of the 1969 ACHR (“In no case may an alien be deported or returned to a country, regardless of whether or not it is his country of origin, if in that country his right to life or personal freedom is in danger of being violated because of his race, nationality, religion, social status, or political opinions.”) or Article 13(4) of the 1985 Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (“Extradition shall not be granted nor shall the person sought be returned when there are grounds to believe that his life is in danger, that he will be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, or that he will be tried by special or ad hoc courts in the requesting State.”). For States Party to the ICCPR, this has been made explicit by the Human Rights Committee in its General Comment No. 31, supra footnote 41, para. 10 (“… [T]he enjoyment of Covenant rights is not limited to citizens of States Parties but must also be available to all individuals, regardless of nationality or statelessness, such as asylum seekers, refugees, migrant workers and other persons, who may find themselves in the territory or subject to the jurisdiction of the State Party. …”). See also infra at Part II.B. See: Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31, supra footnote 41, para. 12. See also supra footnote 41. See, for example, Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 29 on States of Emergency (Article 4), U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11, 31 August 2001, para. 11; Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations/Comments on Canada, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/CAN/CO/5, 20 April 2006, para. 15; Committee Against Torture, Gorki Ernesto Tapia Paez v. Sweden, U.N. Doc. CAT/C/18/D/39/1996, 28 April 1997, para. 14.5. The absolute nature of the prohibition of refoulement to a risk of torture and other forms of ill-treatment under Article 3 of the ECHR has been affirmed by the European Court of Human Rights, for example, in Chahal v. United Kingdom, supra footnote 42. See, for example, Committee Against Torture, Agiza v. Sweden, U.N. Doc. CAT/C/34/D/233/2003, 20 May 2005; Human Rights Committee, Alzery v. Sweden, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/88/D/1416/2005, 10 November 2006; Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Situation of Human Rights of Asylum-Seekers within the Canadian Refugee Determination System, 28 February 2000, para. 154. See also United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Resolution 2005/80 of 21 April 2005 on Protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism; Security Council resolutions 1456 (2003) of 20 January 2003, 1535 (2004) of 26 March 2004, 1624 (2004) of 14 September 2005, the Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism (annex to General Assembly resolution 49/60 of 9 December 1994), the Declaration to Supplement the 1994 Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism (annex to General Assembly resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996), the 2005 World Summit Outcome (General Assembly resolution 60/1 of 16 September 2005) and the Plan of Action annexed to the United Nations Global CounterTerrorism Strategy adopted by the General Assembly on 8 September 2006 (A/RES/60/288). International human rights law does not cease to apply in case of armed conflict, except where a State has derogated from its obligations in accordance with the relevant provisions of the applicable international human rights treaty (for example, Article 4 ICCPR). In determining what constitutes a violation of human rights, regard must be had to international humanitarian law, which operates as lex specialis to international human rights in law during a time of armed conflict. This has been confirmed, inter alia, by the International Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, 8 July 1996, para. 25; and the judgement of 19 December 2005 in Case concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), paras. 215–219. See also, for example, Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee, United States of America, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/USA/CO/3/Rev.1, 18 December 2006, para. 10; Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31, supra footnote 41, para. 11; see 10