cent judgment in Mamatkulov,400 in which the Grand Chamber decided that interim measures of protection requested by the Court are binding on states parties to the ECHR. Both the Human Rights Committee and the Committee against Torture have made it clear that states have an obligation to respect the principle of non-refoulement. The Human Rights Committee has, on a number of occasions expressed concern over the possible negative effects of asylum legislation and practices that fail to ensure that those returned are not exposed to torture. The Committee has expressed concern that, “the absence of monitoring mechanisms with regard to the expulsion of those suspected of terrorism to their countries of origin which, despite assurances that their human rights would be respected, could pose risks to the personal safety and lives of the persons expelled.”401 The Committee is therefore clear. To deport someone, or render them for whatever reason, to their country of origin, or to a third country that will then return them to their country of origin, which will put that person at risk of being tortured, is unlawful. Interim measures are a preventive mechanism. Diplomatic assurances Diplomatic assurances concerning some human rights can be effective under certain circumstances. For example, it is possible for receiving states to give an assurance that an individual will not face the death penalty if returned, even though that penalty is still recognized as lawful under circumscribed circumstances in international law. Therefore, it is a matter of international relations and negotiation that a particular punishment that the deporting state finds particularly repugnant will not be sought or applied.402 Unlike assurances against torture, which may be hard to verify, it would be easy to ascertain that a returnee had not been executed. Likewise, a state requesting extradition of a person may provide diplomatic assurances that that person will not be re-extradited to a third country where they might be at risk of human rights violations and/or that they would be returned to the requested country on completion of the prosecution or of the sentence as the respect of such diplomatic assurances can easily be verified. The issue of the validity of diplomatic assurances in the context of torture and refoulement is, however, controversial. It is currently the subject of extensive debate. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has expressed her grave doubts that diplomatic assurances in the context of torture could ever be effective and morally acceptable.403 She has indicated that these assurances have proven unreliable and ineffective in many cases. Those subject to their “guarantees” have been tortured and ill-treated.404 She added: In the end we are back to the same fundamental question: why are these people sent to countries where they face the risk of torture? They may be sent to face trial, or simply to be held in 400 ECtHR, Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey, Applications nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, 4 February 2005, para. 128. 401 HRC, Concluding observations: New Zealand, doc. CCPR/CO/75/NZL, 26 July 2002, para. 11. 402 Some countries, however, have difficulties in relation to diplomatic assurances in this context as they are of the view that the question of punishment is one for an independent judge, not for the executive who provides the diplomatic assurance. 403 L. Arbour, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, In Our Name, 15 February 2006, at http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/pdf/research/il/ILParbour.pdf. 404 Report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, doc. E/CN.4/2006/94, 16 February 2006, para. 9. 140 Countering Terrorism, Protecting Human Rights