CAT/C/65/D/758/2016 Annex Individual dissenting opinion of Abdelwahab Hani 1. The complainant demonstrated that the facts raised separate issues under articles 3, 14 and 16. The State party’s reasoning is based on former general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, which is obsolete and has been replaced by general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22.1 The Committee has in the meantime expanded the scope of the protection granted by the absolute principle of non-refoulement (art. 3) to persons at risk of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (art. 16) and of violations of the right to redress (art.14), 2 by rejecting the argument of inadmissibility ratione materiae, based on its general comments Nos. 4,3 24 and 3.5 2. It was therefore unwise to refer to a previous inconsistent and contradictory decision, 6 which was taken under the influence of former general comment No. 1, especially since its conclusion 7 is irrelevant from the standpoint of the baseless and erroneous reference in paragraph 8.3.8 3. It is even more erroneous and absurd to expand the scope of the principle of nonrefoulement by concluding that there has been a violation of article 3 based on the risk of ill-treatment (art. 16) and infringement of the right to redress (art. 14), without, however, concluding that there has been a violation of those articles, which contain substantial autonomous provisions. 4. The purpose of the absolute principle of non-refoulement is to “prevent [irreparable damage], not to redress [it] once it has occurred”.9 The same applies to action to prevent any other violation of articles 14 and 16. “[I]t would surely be unreasonable to wait for a violation to occur before taking note of it.”10 5. The Committee should interpret the Convention “in response to evolving threats, issues and practices”.11 It bases its interpretation, inter alia, on the rules enshrined in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.12 Before seeking other relevant national and international norms,13 it would have been wiser to begin by interpreting14 article 16 (1). 6. The “ordinary meaning” in the six authentic languages of the text of the term “in particular” in article 16 (1), which expands its scope to the “obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13”, is not confined to that list, which is neither exhaustive nor restrictive. The Committee considers that the obligations contained in articles 2 to 15 are equally applicable to torture and ill-treatment.15 7. Furthermore, the preamble to the Convention contains four references, all of which can be consulted for interpretative purposes. The Committee can therefore take into account the relevant jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee. The Committee should also 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 GE.19-01969 Paras. 3, 8, 14, 16, 17, 26, 28 and 29. A.N. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/64/D/742/2016), para. 7.3. Ibid. General comment No. 2 (2007) on the implementation of article 2 by States parties, paras. 1, 2 and 6. General comment No. 3 (2012) on the implementation of article 14 by States parties, para. 1. J.B. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/62/D/721/2015). Ibid., para. 6.4. Para. 8.3 of the present decision and footnote 43. Alan v. Switzerland (CAT/C/16/D/21/1995), para. 11.5. T.P.S. v. Canada (CAT/C/24/D/99/1997), individual opinion of Guibril Camara, para. 4. General comment No. 2, para. 1. Articles 30, 31 and 32. Article 16 (2), wisely reflected in paragraphs 8.5 and 8.6 of the present decision. C. Nivardi: “Précision et organes institués par des conventions internationales et européennes” in La Revue des droits de l’homme, July 2015. Ibid. 15