UN TREATY BODIES 1 tee noted “the anguish and stress caused to the mother by the disappearance of her daughter and by the continuing uncertainty concerning her fate and whereabouts. The author has the right to know what has happened to her daughter. In these respects, she too is a victim of the violations of the Covenant suffered by her daughter in particular, of article 7.”212 Similarly, in Schedko v Belarus, the HRC found that “the authorities’ initial failure to notify the author of the scheduled date for the execution of her son, and their subsequent persistent failure to notify her of the location of her son’s grave amounts to inhuman treatment of the author.”213 Thus, the State will be found to violate the rights of a condemned person’s family if it does not inform them of details of the execution, whether or not the execution itself amounts to a violation of the rights of the condemned person. 1.3.7 Extradition and expulsion Extradition or expulsion of an individual who risks being subjected to torture if returned to another State is explicitly prohibited under the UNCAT. The HRC has held that such expulsions are also prohibited by the ICCPR, which also covers cases where there is a risk of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. – UNCAT The vast majority of communications considered by the CAT concern Article 3 UNCAT, which states: “1. No State Party shall expel, return (‘refouler’) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.” In its General Comment on Article 3, the CAT confirmed that this provision applies only to a danger of torture, as defined in Article 1 UNCAT, and does Quinteros Almeida v Uruguay, HRC Communication No. 107/1981, 21 July 1983, §14. Schedko v Belarus, HRC Communication No. 886/1999, 3 April 2003, §10.2. See also Shukurova v Tajikistan, HRC Communication No.1044/2002, 17 March 2006, § 8.7; Sankara and Others v Burkina Faso, HRC Communication No.1159/03, 28 March 2006, § 12.2; Bazarov v Uzbekistan (2006), op. cit., §8.5. 212 213 46