tunity to take place prior to expulsion, in order to avoid irreparable harm to the individual and rendering the review otiose and devoid of meaning.”244 Thus, while the State is obliged to provide for independent review of its decisions, failure to do so may violate only Articles 7 and 2, and not necessarily Article 13. A number of States attempt to respond to the prohibition on deporting individuals to States where they may face torture or ill-treatment by seeking diplomatic assurances from the receiving State that a particular individual will not be subjected to torture or other ill-treatment. Both the HRC and the CAT are sceptical about the value of such assurances, and require States that continue to rely on them to establish clear procedures for their use, with strong judicial review mechanisms and post-return monitoring. Both Committees recognise that any such assurance will be of lower value from a State which has a history of non-respect of its obligation not to subject persons under its jurisdiction to torture or other ill-treatment. UN TREATY BODIES 1.3.7.1 Diplomatic assurances 1 – UNCAT In its Concluding Observations on the USA in 2006, the CAT expressed concern at the State Party’s use of diplomatic assurances and other kinds of guarantees assuring that a person will not be tortured if expelled, returned, transferred or extradited to another State. In particular, it was “concerned by the secrecy of such procedures including the absence of judicial scrutiny and the lack of monitoring mechanisms put in place to assess if the assurances have been honoured.”245 While it stopped short of forbidding their use in all circumstances, the Committee urged the US to establish and implement clear procedures for obtaining such assurances, with adequate judicial review, and effective post-return monitoring arrangements. The Committee further held that the government should “only rely on ‘diplomatic assurances’ in regard to States which do not systematically violate the Convention’s provisions, and after a thorough examination of the merits of each individual case.”246 The leading case in this area is Agiza v Sweden.247 The author in that case was suspected of involvement in terrorist activities, and had been removed by Sweden to Egypt on 18 December 2001, on an aircraft provided by the USA. He Alzery v Sweden (2006), op. cit., §11.8. CAT, Concluding Observations on the USA, UN Doc. CAT/C/USA/CO/2, 2006, §21. 246 Ibid. 247 Agiza v Sweden (2005), op. cit. 244 245 51