concerned would face a real risk of torture or other ill-treatment. [Footnote: UNCAT, CAT/C/CAN/CO/6, para. 11; UNCAT, CAT/C/GBR/CO/5, para. 19; CAT/C/DNK/CO/6-7, para. 18]. 10. The principle of “non-refoulement” applies to any person without any form of discrimination and regardless of the nationality or statelessness or the legal, administrative or judicial status of the person concerned under ordinary or emergency, civilian or military law; it protects anybody: citizens, e.g. facing extradition, or non-citizens, e.g., refugees, asylum-seekers, stateless people, migrants, whether in a ‘regular’ or ‘irregular’ situation, including those who have overstayed or otherwise breached the terms of their visas. also to territories under foreign military occupation and to any other territories over which a State party, through its agents operating outside its territory, has a factual control and authority.4 v) Paragraph 11 16. We consider that paragraph 11 would be enhanced by reiterating this Committee’s guidance expressed in its first General Comment, namely, that “[t]he risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. However, the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable.”19 [emphasis added]. It is our view that this full test should be retained, in order to indicate the level of proof against which any non-refoulement claim must be assessed and to ensure that the State party does not place too high a burden on any claimant. 17. Further, in light of our comments above, we also recommend deleting footnote 6 and replacing “deportation” with “involuntary transfer”. Recommended textual changes: 11. The non-refoulement obligation in article 3 of the Convention exists whenever there are “substantial grounds”5 for believing that the person concerned would be in danger of being subjected to torture in a State to which he or she is facing involuntary transfer deportation.6 The Committee’s practice has been to determine that “substantial grounds” exist whenever the risk of torture is “personal, present, foreseeable and real.”7 As the Committee has found, “the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. However, the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable – and indeed it needs only to be real.8”[add the following to the text of footnote 8: “General Comment No. 1: Implementation of Article 3 of the Convention in the Context of Article 22, para. 6] vi) Paragraph 12 18. Paragraph 12 provides that in the case of a decision that a person may not be removed, they “should be allowed to remain in the territory […] of the State party”. In this regard, the Committee has previously stated that if a State recognizes the risk of torture and provides a person with nonrefoulement protection, it must provide that person with legal personality and status, and also help the person find a durable solution. Such a durable solution goes beyond merely allowing the person to remain in the territory and may include positive steps to facilitate local integration or resettlement in another State.20 We recommend express inclusion of those points by adding an extra sentence to 19 See also CAT, Mukerrem Guclu v. Sweden, UN Doc. CAT/C/45/D/349/2008, 16 December 2010, para. 6.4. Local integration is an integration of refugees/persons under international protection in the host community. Resettlement is a process of finding the State willing to accept the person under protection when a State granting protection cannot provide local integration. See CAT, Concluding Observations: Cuba, UN Doc. CAT/C/CUB/CO/2, 25 June 2012, para. 9; CAT, Concluding Observations: Monaco, UN Doc. CAT/C/MCO/CO/4-5, 17 June 2011, paras 920 9 AI Index: IOR 40/6040/2017