whenever States parties’ non-refoulement obligations under the Convention are engaged, they will take precedence and prevail over any other obligation under the extradition agreement and/or treaty. States parties should seek to amend or make an interpretative declaration or enter a reservation into any extradition treaty or agreement, whether bilateral or multilateral, which they have already entered into, with a view to providing for an express exception to their obligations under such agreements or treaties based on non-refoulement grounds, consistent with the Convention, whenever such agreements or treaties omit such an exception. ii) Paragraph 25 25. Furthermore, those States parties to the Convention which, subsequently, ….” h) Section VII: Article 3 in the context of Article 16, paragraph 2, of the Convention, paragraphs 26-27 65. In light of our comments at paragraphs 7 and 9-11 above, we respectfully recommend the deletion of paragraphs 26 and 27. i) Section VIII: Duties of States parties to consider specific human rights situations in which the right of “non-refoulement” applies, paragraphs 28-30 i) Paragraph 29 66. We welcome the inclusion of the important standards outlined at paragraph 29. For greater clarity, we recommend the following textual revisions. Recommended textual revisions to paragraph 29 29. In this regard, the Committee observes that the infliction past evidence of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatments or punishments, whether or not amounting or not amounting to torture, to which of an individual or his/her family were exposed in their State of origin or would be exposed in the State where the person is to be transferred of deportation, constitutes an strong indication that the person is would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon transfer. if he/she is expelled, returned or extradited to one of those States. …. ii) Paragraph 30 67. For greater clarity we recommend that “an indication” in the current draft be replaced with the term “evidence”. Recommended textual changes and additions: 30. In this connection, the Committee… which may constitute an indication evidence of a risk of torture… (1) Paragraph 30(b) 68. Paragraph 30(b) appears to restrict abuse to the physical, and restrict the scope of protection to those ill-treated on the basis of discrimination, which is not a requirement under Article 3. Further, and in view of the fact that risks associated with Article 3 may be posed by non-state actors, as the draft General Comment itself explains, there is no reason to restrict the scope of protection to acts by public officials. 30 AI Index: IOR 40/6040/2017