The convention against torture and the protection of refugees

Refugee Survey Quarterly

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 83-97

  Doerfel, Jan ^a  

^a International Research Centre on Social Minorities (IRCSM)   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN RIGHTS; REFUGEE;

EID: 21344462328     PISSN: 10204067     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/rsq/hdi028     Document Type: Article

References (136)

1. pursuant to article 33(2) or 1(F) of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.
2. The Committee has been set up under the Convention to monitor states' compliance with its provisions. Its mandate encompasses four principal activities: the examination of periodic state reports (pursuant to article 19 of the Convention), the undertaking of confidential inquiries in the light of information suggesting that torture is systematically practised in the territory of a State party (article 20), the consideration of individual communications (article 22), and the examination of inter-state complaints (article 21). No inter-state complaint has been lodged to date.
3. The examination of individual complaints may only be undertaken by the Committee in respect of State parties which have declared that they recognise its competence to receive and consider such communications pursuant to article 22.
4. The first communication on article 3 was considered in 1994.
5. See footnote 82.
6. General Comment 1 (21/1997), Official Records: Fifty-third Session; supplement No.44 (A53/44), p.52/53.
7. See, for example, U. S. v Finland (1 May 2003), Communication No. 197/2002, CAT/C/30/D/197/2002: "The Committee recalls that, for article 3 of the Convention to apply, the individual concerned must face a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he/she is being returned, and that this danger must be personal and present." (para.7.8).
8. Article 4 of the first Draft International Convention against corture and other inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment (E/CN.4/1285, submitted on 18 January 1978) provided: "No State Party may expel or extradite a person to a State where there are reasonable grounds to believe that he may be in danger of being subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".
9. TM. v Sweden (18 November 2003), Communication No.228/2003, CAT/C/ 31/D/228/2003;
10. M.V. v Netherlands (2 May 2003), Communication No.201/2002, CAT/C/ 30/D/201/2002.
11. TM. v Sweden (18 November 2003), Communication No.228/2003, CAT/C/ 31/D/228/2003.
12. See S.V. et al. v Canada (15 May2000), Communication No.49/1996, A/ 56/44 re risk of torture from LTTE.
13. and S.S. v Netherlands (19 May 2003), Communication No.191/2001, CAT/C/30/D/191/2001, para. 6.4.
14. Communication No.83/1997, Official Records; Fifty-third session; supplement No.44 (A/53/44).
15. Communication No. 120/1998; No.44 (A/54/44). The Committee considered that Mr Elmi would be at risk of torture if returned due to the chaos prevailing in Somalia, the fact that he belonged to a small, unarmed clan (the Sikhal clan), and the fact that his family had been targeted in the past by the Hawiye clan.
16. Such as negotiating with the international community inter alia on the establishment of a common administration and providing public services.
17. In Y.H.A. v. Australia (23 November 2001), Communication No. 162/ 2002, A/57/44, the Committee considered that due to establishment of a new Transitional government, the author was no longer at risk of torture.
18. In H.M.H.I. v Australia (1 May 2002), Communication No. 177/2001, A/57/44, the Committee held that, despite doubts as to "the reach of its territorial authority and its permanence", the establishment of "a State authority in the form of the Transitional National Government" meant that violations perpetrated by clans no longer fell within its mandate.
19. Guy S. Goodwin-Gill (1996) The Refugee in International Law (Second Edition, Clarendon Press, Oxford), p.67.
20. Similarly Savitri Taylor: "unlike the protection afforded by the Refugee Convention, the protection provided by article 3 of the Torture Convention is not limited by reference to the reasons for the danger" in Australia's Implementation of its Non-refoulement Obligations under the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights' in University of New South Wales Law Journal (1994), Volume 17(2), p.443;
21. see also Kay Hailbronner and Albrecht Randelzhofer 'Zur Zeichnung der UN-Folterkonvention dutch die Bundesrepublik Deutschland' in Europäische Grundrechte Zeitschrift (EuGRZ, 1986 13 Jg, Heft 22, 28 November 1986).
22. See especially PQL v Canada (17 November 1997), Communication No-57/1996, CAT/C/19/D/57/1996. Grounds for persecution identified in Articles 1(a) and 33 of the 1951 Convention encompass "race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion".
23. B.S. v Canada (14 November 2001), Communication No-166/2000, CAT/C/27/D/166/2000.
24. Z.Z. v Canada (15 May 2001), Communication No. 123/1998, CAT/C/26/ D/123/1998: the author claimed a risk of torture at the hands of the Taliban on grounds of his Tajik ethnicity. In the case of V.N.I.M. v Canada (12 November 2001),
25. Complaint No. 119/1998, CAT/C/29/D/ 119/1998, the Committee held that the petitioner had "not demonstrated that he is an opponent of the regime who is wanted for terrorist activities". The petitioner had never invoked a risk of torture on grounds of his political activities, but rather on the grounds that he was in possession of information about the officers who had tortured him and his efforts to receive a disability pension for his injuries sustained.
26. S. C. v Denmark (10 May 2000), Communication No. 143/1999, CAT/C/ 24/D/143/1999.
27. AI v Switzerland (May 2004), Communication 182/2001, CAT/C/32/D/ 182/2001.
28. S. T. v Netherlands (23 November 2001), Communication No. 175/ 2000, CAT/C/27/D/175/2000.
29. In M. V. v Netherlands (2 May 2003), Communication No.201/2002, CAT/C/30/D/201/2002, the Committee observed that "the political activity that the complainant engaged in was confined to (unspecified) involvement with the political party HADEP and the IHD organisation, including the collection of information" (7.3).
30. K. T. v Switzerland (18 April 2000), Communication No 118/1998, CAT/C/23/D/118/1998: the claimant could not produce a membership card to prove membership in a political party.
31. In H.O. v Sweden (13 November 2001), Communication No.178/2001, CAT/C/27/D/178/2001, the Iranian petitioner stated that he had participated in demonstrations in February 1999, during which he handed out leaflets. During the demonstration, Revolutionary guards are said to have opened fire and the petitioner's colleague was shot. Whilst the petitioner went into hiding, his brother and father were reportedly arrested. The Committee considered that "the political activities that the petitioner claims to have carried out prior to and during the demonstrations in February 1999 are not of such nature as to lead to the conclusion that he risks being tortured upon return" (para. 14).
32. See also Ms E.T.B. v Denmark (30 April 2002), Communication No. 146/1999, CAT/C/28/D/146/1999: the petitioner feared torture as a result of having participated in demonstrations. After one such demonstration in November 1993, she had reportedly been arrested and raped.
33. Communication No. 135/1999, CAT/C/32/D/135/1999, para.6.5.
34. See M.A.K v Germany (17 May 2004), Communication 214/2002, CAT/C/ 32/D/214/2002;
35. and M.K.O. v Netherlands (9 May 2001), Communication 134/1999, CAT/ C/26/D/134/1999. In the latter case, the Committee considered that the author who had been arrested in the Netherlands with 300 other Kurds during a demonstration against Öcalan's extradition in February 1999, had not "demonstrated that his later activities in the Netherlands could draw the attention of the Turkish authorities to the extent that he would risk being tortured were he removed to Turkey" (pa-ra.7.4).
36. See also M. V. v Netherlands (2 May 2003), Communication No.201/ 2002, CAT/C/30/D/201/2002.
37. In Y.S. v Switzerland (15 May 2001), Communication No.147/1999, CAT/C/26/D/147/1999,
38. and K.M. v Switzerland (4 July 2000), Communication No.107/1998, CAT/C/23/D/107/1998, the Claimants had been suspected by the State of having supported the PKK. No violation found on the grounds that since their flight no evidence suggested that they had collaborated with the PKK, nor that they or their families had been intimidated by the Turkish authorities.
39. See also H.D. v Switzerland (30 April 1999) Communication No 112/ 1998, CAT/C/22/D/112/1998 for identical refusal grounds.
40. Communication No.34/1995; A/52/44, para.9.5.
41. Communication 135/1999, CAT/C/32/D/135/1999, para.6.5.
42. In the case of A.M. v Switzerland (14 November 2000), Communication No.144/1999, CAT/C/29/D/144/1999, para.6.6, the Committee found that no risk of torture had been substantiated as the author had "not mentioned any forms of persecution to which he was subjected in his country of origin", nor had he been tortured, questioned or detained by security forces.
43. See, inter alia, A.K. v Australia (5 May 2004), Communication No.148/1999, CAT/C/32/D/148/1999, M. V. v Turkey (2 May 2003), Communication No.201/2002 (CAT/C/30/D/201/2001), para.7.3;
44. R. T. v Australia (11 November 2003), Communication No. 153/2000 (CAT/C/31/D/153/2000.
45. H.A.D. v Switzerland (10 May 2000), Communication 126/1999, CAT/C/ 24/D/126/1999: torture had occurred 15 years earlier and was not sufficient to attest to a current risk of torture or "deliberate persecution".
46. See also V.X.N. and H.N. v Sweden (15 May 2000), Communications Nos. 130/1999 and 131/1999 (CAT/C/24/D/130 & 131/1999).
47. See Mr V.R. v Denmark (17 November 2003), CAT/C/31/D/210/2002, where the author challenged the State party's interpretation of a medical report. In Mr J.A.G.V. v Sweden (18 November 2003), CAT/C/ 31/D/215/2002, the Committee stated that it by presenting medical certificates only, the complainant "had not adduced sufficient evidence to prove that he was subjected to torture in Colombia". In U.S. v Finland (1 May 2003),
48. Communication No.197/2002, CAT/C/30/D/197/2002, the Committee stated with regards to the author who had produced six medical reports in support of his torture allegations that "the petitioner provided medical reports attesting to injuries that were 'possibly caused by torture', though none of the reports conclusively confirms that he was tortured during his detention in 1998" (para.7.6).
49. In the case of A.M. v Switzerland (14 November 2000) Communication No.144/1999, CAT/C/29/D/144/1999, the author was refused on the grounds that his statements regarding his alleged risk of torture were "vague and general, at times implausible, at times inaccurate and at times inconsistent" (para.6.5).
50. X.Y. v Switzerland (15 May 2001), Communication 128/1999, CAT/C/ 26/D/128/1999: presentation of allegations of torture and medical certificate after refusal of asylum application impacts on credibility.
51. Communication No.135/1999, CAT/C/32/D/135/1999; para.6.4.
52. T.M. v Sweden (2 December 2003), Communication No.228/2003, CAT/C/ 31/D/228/2003;
53. see also K.K. v Switzerland (11 November 2003), Communication No.186/2001, CAT/C/31/D/186/2001.
54. See PQL v Canada (17 November 1997), Communication No.57/1996, CAT/ C/19/D/57/1996, and IAO v Sweden (6 May 1998),
55. Communication No.65/1997, CAT/C/20/D/65/1997, where the Committee noted that a "risk of being detained as such is not sufficient to trigger the protection of article 3 of the Convention". (para.14-5).
56. Communication No. 142/1999, CAT/C/26/D/142/1999, para.6.7.
57. See, inter alia, AI v Switzerland (May 2004), Communication 182/ 2001, CAT/C/32/D/182/2001, para.6.6, where the Committee held with regards to the Tamil applicant who suffered from post-traumatic stress dis-order "that the absence of any criminal proceedings against the complainant in the past, as well as his low political profile, can in turn be adduced as factors likely to lower any risk of serious consequences, should he be arrested again." (para.6.6)
58. See also H.D. v Switzerland (30 April 1999), Communication No 112/ 1998, CAT/C/22/13/112/1998
59. and K.M. v Switzerland (4 July 2000), Communication No. 107/1998, CAT/C/23/D/107/1998: "the Committee notes the information provided by the Swiss embassy in Ankara according to which the police has not established a dossier on the author and he is not under an order of arrest" (para.6.6).
60. Ms G.K. v Switzerland (7 May 2003), para.6.6. Ms G.K., the German petitioner submitted that a Spanish extradition request in relation to the storage of explosives was based on testimony extracted from an ETA suspect as a result of torture. She stated that the request did not disclose the full information which showed that the charges were without foundation - and hence politically motivated (an opinion that had been shared by the Berlin prosecutor who discontinued criminal proceedings against the petitioner). The Committee also rejected the author's case on the grounds that she had failed to prove that the statement in question had been extracted by means of torture.
61. In Y.S. v Switzerland (15 May 2001), Communication No. 147/1999, CAT/C/26/D/147/1999, the Committee accepted information from the State party that there existed no file on the author with the police in his country of origin as exclusive evidence.
62. Ms Hanan Ahmed Fouad Abd El Khalek Attia v Sweden (17 November 2003), Communication No.199/2002, CAT/C/31/D/199/2002.
63. Y.S. v Switzerland (15 May 2001), Communication No.147/1999, CAT/ C/26/D/147/1999, K.M. v Switzerland (4 July 2000),
64. Communication No.107/1998, CAT/C/23/D/107/1998.
65. G.R.B. v Sweden (15 May 1998), Communication No.83/1997, A/53/44, para.6.3.
66. L.M.T.D. v Sweden (15 May 2002), Communication No.164/2000, CAT/C/ 28/D/164/2000 (the Committee noted however that the human rights situation in Venezuela remained "poor").
67. See e.g. Mr. H.K.H. v Sweden (19 November 2002), Complaint No.204/ 2002, CAT/C/29/D/204/2002, where the Committee recognised "the ongoing widespread violations of human rights in Iran",
68. and H.D. v Switzerland (30 April 1999);
69. Communication No 112/1998, CAT/C/22/D/112/1998 where the Committee noted "with concern the numerous reports of human rights violations including the use of torture, in Turkey" (6.6).
70. See also K.T. v Switzerland (19 November 1999), Communication No 118/1998, CAT/C/23/D/118/1998, para 6.5 re Democratic Republic of Congo.
71. Communication 162/2000, CAT/C/27/D/162/2000.
72. Communication No. 142/1999, CAT/C/26/D/142/1999, para.6.7.
73. Mr. V.N.I.M. v Canada (12 November 2002), Complaint No. 119/1998, CAT/C/29/D/119/1998, para.8.5 (re Honduras).
74. M. V. v Turkey (2 May 2003), Communication 201/2002 (CAT/C/30/D/ 201/2001), para.7.3.
75. A.A. v Netherlands (30 April 2003), Communication 198/2002 (CAT/C/ 30/D/198/2002), para.7.6.
76. See S.S. v Netherlands (19 May 2003), Communication 191/2001, CAT/ C/30/D/191/2001, para.6.3,
77. A.I. v Switzerland (12 May 2004), Communication 182/2001, CAT/C/ 32/D/182/200, para.6.5
78. and U.S. v Finland (1 May 2003), Communication 197/2002, CAT/C/30/ D/197/2002; para. 7.7.
79. E.J.V.M. v Sweden (November 2003), para.8.4.
80. See S.S. v Netherlands (19 May 2003), CAT/C/30/D/191/2001, para.6.3.
81. S. C. v Denmark (10 May 2000), 3 September 2000, CAT/C/24/D/143/ 1999.
82. Ms Hanan Ahmed Fouad Abd El Khalek Attia v Sweden (17 November 2003), Communication No.199/2002, CAT/C/31/D/199/2002.
83. Mr SA v Sweden (7 May 2004), Communication 243/2004, CAT/C/32/ D7243/2004.
84. Communication No.96/1997;
85. CAT/C/23/D/96/1997, para.7.4.
86. see in particular Gorki Ernesto Tapia Paez (19/1/1996).
87. Communication 43/1996, CAT/C/17/D/43/1996, para. 10.2.
88. Communication No.34/1995, Communication No.34/1995;
89. A/52/44, para.9.8.
90. X.Y. v Switzerland (15 May 2001), Communication 128/1999, CAT/C/ 26/D/128/1999;
91. A.R. v. The Netherlands (14 November 2003), Communication No.203/ 2002.
92. Ms E.T.B. v Denmark (30 April 2002), Communication No. 146/1999;
93. CAT/C/28/D/146/1999: The Committee dismissed information of persecution against the author (a declaration by neighbours) on the grounds that she had submitted this information two and a half years after lodging her initial asylum claim.
94. Mrs Pauline Muzonzo Paku Kisoki v Sweden (8 May 1996), Communication No. 41/1996, CAT/C/16/D/41/1996, para.9.3;
95. see also Ismail Alan v Switzerland (8 May 1996), Communication No 21/1995, CAT/C/16/D/21/1995. para 11.3.
96. H.D. v Switzerland (30 April 1999), Communication No 112/1998, CAT/ C/22/D/112/1998, para.6.4: "even in the presence of lingering doubts as to the facts presented by the author of a communication, it must satisfy itself that the applicant's security will not be jeopardized. It is not necessary, for the Committee to be so satisfied, that all the facts related by the author should be proved: it is enough if the Committee considers them sufficiently well attested and credible.
97. See also K.M. v Switzerland (4 July 2000, Communication No-107/ 1998, CAT/C/23/D/107/1998): "The Committee considers ... that those inconsistencies and contradictions are not of such nature as to be relevant for the assessment of the risk under which the author might be if he is returned to Turkey". (para.6.5).
98. M.P.S. v Australia (30 April 2002), Communication No.138/1999, CAT/ C/28/D/138/1999, para.7.3.
99. Communication 203/2002, para.7.6.
100. S.G. v. The Netherlands (12 May 2004, Communication 135/1999, CAT/ C/32/D/135/1999), 6.4.
101. See A.K. v. Australia (5 May 2004), Communication 148/1999, CAT/C/ 32/D/148/1999, para.6.5;
102. M.O. v. Denmark (12 November 2003), Communication 209/2002, CAT/C/ 31/D/209/2002.
103. In 2003 (in the case of Ms G.K. v. Switzerland (7 May 2003), Communication 219/2002, the Committee had stated in relation to a claim under article 15 of the Convention that "it is for the courts of the States parties to the Convention, and not for the Committee, to evaluate the facts and evidence in a particular case, unless it can be ascertained that the manner in which such facts and evidence were evaluated was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice " (para.6.12). This standard was subsequently transferred to article 3 cases.
104. General Comment 1 (21/11/97); para.6 and 7.
105. Mr. J.A.G.V. v Sweden (11 November 2003), Communication No.215/ 2002, CAT/C/31/D/215/2002.
106. See B.M. v Sweden (30 April 2002), Complaint No. 179/2001, CAT/C/ 28/D/179/2001.
107. In the cases of V.X.N. and H.N. v Sweden (15 May 2000), communications Nos. 130/1999 and 131/1999 (CAT/C/24/13/130 & 131/ 1999), the two applicants had been recognised by the UNHCR as Convention refugees in 1991 and 1992.
108. See H.B.H., T.N.T., H.J.O., H.O.H., H.R.H., H.G.H. v Switzerland (29 April 2003), Communication No.192/2001, CAT/C/30/D/192/2001;
109. A.D. v Netherlands (12 November 1999), Communication No.96/1997, CAT/C/23/D/96/1997.
110. In the case of K.S.Y. v Netherlands (15 May 2003), Communication No.190/22001, CAT/C/30/D/190/2001, the Claimant invoked a risk upon return due to homosexuality supported by information contained in the annual report of the UN Special Representative on Iran. He was refused by Committee on the grounds that there was "no active policy of prosecution of charges of homosexuality in Iran" (para.7.4).
111. Complaint No.179/2001, CAT/C/28/D/179/2001.
112. In Gorki Ernesto Tapia Paez v Sweden (28 April 1997), Communication No.39/1996;
113. Official Records: Fifty-second session; supplement No.44 (A/52/44), the Committee stated that the refusal of the State to grant refugee status to the author, who was a member of Sendero, Luminoso and had participated in a demonstration where he had given out handmade bombs, was "based on the exception clause of article 1 F. of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees" (para. 14.4). The Committee subsequently considered that the State party had an obligation to refrain from deporting the author.
114. M.B.B. v Sweden (Communication No.104/1998; 5 May 1999;
115. Fifty-fourth session; supplement No.44 (A/54/44), para.6.4.
116. See Rule 108 of the revised rules of procedure (CAT/C/3/Rev.4 of 9 August 2002).
117. In the case of Mrs G.K. v Switzerland (7th May 2004, Communication 219/2002, CAT/C/30/D/219/2002), the Committee found that no risk of torture had existed for the Claimant, who had been extradited to Spain on terrorism charges after a withdrawal of interim measures, on the grounds that the risk of torture had been assessed by the Swiss authorities and that "subsequent to the complainant's extradition to Spain, it had receive[d] no information on torture or ill-treatment suffered by the complainant during incommunicado detention" (para.6.8).
118. See also M.P.S. v Australia (30th April 2003)
119. and Mr J.A.G. V. v Sweden (11 November 2003, Communication No.215/ 2002, CAT/C/31/D/215/2002) where requests for interim measures were made but allegedly received once the deportation had taken place. The Committee relied on the fact that it had received no information of torture upon return in not finding the complaints substantiated (although Mr J.A.G.V. had been detained upon arrival in Colombia).
120. Ms Hanan Ahmed Fouad Abd El Khalek Attia v Sweden (17 November 2003), Communication No. 199/2002, CAT/C/31/D/199/2002.
121. One violation in 1994 (Mutombo v. Switzerland (27 April 1994), Communication No. 13/1993, CAT/C/12/D/13/1993);
122. three violations in 1996 (Alan v. Switzerland (8 May 1996), Communication No 21/1995, CAT/C/16/D/21/1995;
123. Kisoki v. Sweden (8 May 1996), Communication No. 41/1996, CAT/C/ 16/D/41/1996
124. and Kaveh Yaragh Talk v Sweden (15 November 1996), Communication 43/1996, CAT/C/17/D/43/1996);
125. two violations in 1997 (Tapia Páez v. Sweden (28 April 1997), Communication No. 39/1996, CAT/C/18/D/39/1996
126. and Seid Mortesa Aemei v. Switzerland (29 May 1997), Communication No. 34/1995, CAT/C/18/D/34/1995);
127. three violations in 1998 (Cecilia Rosana Nunez Chipana v Venezuela (10' November 1998), Communication No 110/1998, CAT/C/21/D/110/1998;
128. Shek Elmi v. Australia (25 May 1998), Communication No. 120/1998, CAT/C/22/D/120/1998
129. and Avedes Hamayak Korban v Sweden (16 November 1998), Communication No.88/1997; A/54/44);
130. three violations in 2000 (Arana v. France (5 June 2000), Communication No. 63/1997, CAT/C/23/D/63/1997
131. and Tijinder Pal Singh v Canada (4 September 2000), Communication No. 99/1997, CAT/C/24/D/99/1997
132. and A.S. v Sweden (24 November 2000), Communication No. 149/1999, CAT/C/25/D/149/1999)
133. and one in 2002 (Mr. Chedli Ben Ahmed Karoui v Sweden (8 May 2002), Complaint No. 185/2001, A/57/44).
134. through medical certificates and interventions by notable non-governmental organisations. Ms Hanan Ahmed Fouad Abd El Khalek Attia v Sweden (17 November 2003), Communication No.199/2002, CAT/C/ 31/D/199/2002.
135. A number of thematic Special Rapporteurs have developed an "urgent appeal" procedure in order to react promptly to information suggesting that an individual or a group of individuals is at risk of serious human rights violations, including as a result of imminent deportation to a country of origin or another country. These include the UN Special Rapporteurs on torture, on violence against women, on freedom of opinion and expression, on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary execution, on the rights of migrants, on freedom of religion and belief, as well as the Special representative on human rights defenders and the UN Working Group on arbitrary detention. (For a list of Special Rapporteurs and further documents, see http://www.ohchr.org/english/ bodies/chr/special/themes.htm). When acting on urgent information, UN experts transmit a facsimile directly to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the country concerned, urging the Government in question to ensure the physical and mental integrity of the person(s) concerned are ensured. Any individual, group, or non-governmental organisation can bring such information to the attention of one or several Special Rapporteurs by sending an e-mail to urgent-actionhchr.org or by contacting the Rapporteurs at the UN office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, OHCHR-UNOG, 1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland, Fax: 00 41 22 917 9006. The information submitted ought to be as detailed as possible and include the name(s) of the person(s) to be deported, the reasons why they are believed to be at risk of serious human rights violations upon return, the date of deportation, any relevant background material in relation to any previous human rights violations to which they have been subjected, as well as the identity of the person or organisation submitting the report (name and contact details which will remain confidential). For further information in relation to a risk of torture, see also UN Fact-Sheet "Combating torture" on http:// www.ohchr.org/english/about/publications/docs/fs4rev1.pdf.
136. Director of the International Research Centre on Social Minorities (IRCSM) and barrister practising in London. He worked as research assistant to the UN Special Rapporteur on torture from 2000 to 2002.