Non-Refoulement Obligations, Diplomatic Assurances, And Extradition Practices In Russia: Additional Submissions By ICJ And ECRE.pdf

## T.K. and S.R. v. Russia: Key Points on Non-Refoulement Obligations and Diplomatic Assurances

This submission by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) addresses key aspects of the non-refoulement obligation under international human rights law in the context of T.K. and S.R.'s case against Russia. It also examines the use of diplomatic assurances for protection against torture and serious human rights violations.

Non-Refoulement Obligations:

Absolute Prohibition: The principle of non-refoulement under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and other relevant instruments absolutely prohibits states from returning individuals to a place where they face real risk of serious human rights violations, including torture, ill-treatment, denial of justice, or arbitrary detention.
Rigorous Scrutiny: The Court emphasizes that non-refoulement claims require close and rigorous scrutiny. Contracting Parties must assess all relevant evidence, obtain information if necessary, avoid placing an unrealistic burden on applicants, consider reliable and objective sources (including from other states, UN agencies, and reputable NGOs), and apply the benefit of the doubt considering specific vulnerabilities of asylum seekers.
Domestic Court Role: While domestic courts generally assess evidence, the ECHR retains a supervisory role to ensure compliance with Convention obligations. If an applicant provides reasoned grounds questioning the accuracy of government information, the Court demands that domestic assessments are adequate, sufficiently supported, and based on reliable sources.

Diplomatic Assurances:

Past Insufficiency: The Court has consistently found diplomatic assurances from destination countries to be unsatisfactory when they are formulated in standard terms without specific details or verifiable mechanisms for monitoring compliance.
Consideration of Sources: When evaluating country material, the Court considers factors like the source's independence, reliability, objectivity, investigation methods, consistency of conclusions, and corroboration by other sources. The presence and reporting capacities of authors within the country are also relevant.
Challenges in Gathering Information: Recognizing the difficulties governments and NGOs face gathering information in volatile situations, the Court understands that not all effective information will be available.

Relevance to T.K. and S.R.'s Case:

This submission aims to provide context for understanding:

The legal framework surrounding non-refoulement obligations in relation to Russia.
The specific requirements for evaluating evidence regarding risk of serious human rights violations.
* The limitations and potential unreliability of diplomatic assurances in ensuring protection against torture and other abuses.