UN TREATY BODIES 1 was ill-treated by foreign agents immediately preceding his expulsion, while still on Swedish territory. The Committee found that this ill-treatment had taken place with the acquiescence of the Swedish police. However, even without the ill-treatment, the State party had enough information at its disposal at the time of removal to draw the “natural conclusion” that the complainant was at a real risk of torture. Moreover, “The procurement of diplomatic assurances, which… provided no mechanism for their enforcement, did not suffice to protect against this manifest risk.”248 Thus, while diplomatic assurances may not be inherently incompatible with a State’s obligations under Article 3 UNCAT, they must include provisions for both enforcement and rigorous monitoring. The CAT expanded on these requirements in Pelit v Azerbaijan, noting that seeking diplomatic assurances is itself “an acknowledgment that, without more, expulsion of the complainant would raise issues of her mistreatment.”249 Furthermore, the post-expulsion monitoring undertaken by the returning State must be, both objectively and in the complainant’s perception, “objective, impartial and sufficiently trustworthy.”250 – ICCPR As discussed above, in the context of the right to life, the HRC has held that States which have abolished the death penalty may not extradite individuals to other countries where they may face this sentence. Nonetheless, the Committee allowed an exception; where the receiving State gives assurances that the death penalty will not be imposed, extradition will not automatically violate Article 6.251 The attitude of the HRC to Article 7 has, however, been more restrictive, particularly in the light of ‘extraordinary renditions’ and the ‘war on terror.’ In its Concluding Observations on the USA in 2006, the Committee warned that “The State party should exercise the utmost care in the use of diplomatic assurances and adopt clear and transparent procedures with adequate judicial mechanisms for review before individuals are deported, as well as effective mechanisms to monitor scrupulously and vigorously the fate of the affected individuals.”252 Ibid. §13.4. In its decision, the Committee did not explicitly name this case as involving socalled ‘extraordinary rendition,’ in which persons suspected to pose a national security threat are taken to States where they will be tortured in order to provide information for the security services of a third State. Such practices are clearly prohibited under the UNCAT. 249 Pelit v Azerbaijan, CAT Communication No. 281/2005, 1 May 2007, §11. 250 Ibid. 251 Judge v Canada (2002), op. cit., §10.4. 252 HRC, Concluding Observations on the USA, UN Doc. CCPR/C/USA/CO/3, 2006, §16. 248 52