Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Terrorism and Counter-terrorism Fact Sheet No

Guerrero v. Colombia, 31 March 1982 (A/37/40, annex XI, paras. 12.2, 13.1–13.3). 
See also the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials 
(A/CONF.144/28/Rev.1), the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials (General 
Assembly resolution 34/169) and the Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation 
of Extralegal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (Economic and Social Council resolution 
1989/65).
55
See E/CN.4/2006/53, para. 48. On the strict requirements regarding the use of force 
under the European Convention on Human Rights, see, inter alia, European Court of 
Human Rights, McCann v. United Kingdom, N° 18984/91, Judgement of 27 September 
1995.
56
See, for example, Prosecutor v. Furund
ž
ija, para. 144.
57
See articles 7 and 4 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 
articles 3 and 15 (2) of the European Convention on Human Rights, articles 5 and 27 (2) 
of the American Convention on Human Rights, article 5 of the African Charter on Human 
and Peoples’ Rights, and common article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions. See also Inter-
American Commission on Human Rights, “Report on the situation of human rights of asylum 
seekers within the Canadian refugee determination system” (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.106, Doc. 40 
rev., para. 118).
58
See Committee against Torture, views on communication N° 39/1996, Tapia Páez v. 
Sweden, 28 April 1997: “[T]he test of article 3 of the Convention is absolute. Whenever 
substantial grounds exist for believing that an individual would be in danger of being 
subjected to torture upon expulsion to another State, the State party is under obligation not 
to return the person concerned to that State. The nature of the activities in which the person 

---

53
concerned engaged cannot be a material consideration when making a determination 
under article 3 of the Convention” (A/52/44, annex V). See also, Human Rights Committee: 
“The State party should recognize the absolute nature of the prohibition of torture, cruel, 
inhuman or degrading treatment, which in no circumstances can be derogated from. Such 
treatments can never be justified on the basis of a balance to be found between society’s 
interest and the individual’s rights under article 7 of the Covenant. No person, without any 
exception, even those suspected of presenting a danger to national security or the safety 
of any person, and even during a state of emergency, may be deported to a country where 
he/she runs the risk of being subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” 
(A/61/40 (vol. I), para. 76 (15)).
59
See, for example, the Report of the Committee against Torture (A/59/44, paras. 67, 
126 and 144) and “Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment: Report of the 
Special Rapporteur on the question of torture, Manfred Nowak” (E/CN.4/2006/6).
60
See Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading 
treatment or punishment (A/61/259, paras. 44–65).
61
Legal Consequences…, para. 111. 
62
See also Commission on Human Rights resolution 2005/39: “… prolonged 
incommunicado detention or detention in secret places may facilitate the perpetration of 
torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and can in itself 
constitute a form of such treatment, and urges all States to respect the safeguards concerning 
the liberty, security and the dignity of the person” (para. 9). 
63
See, for example, Human Rights Committee, general comment N° 20 (1992), para. 6, 
and “Situation of detainees at Guantánamo Bay” (E/CN.4/2006/120, para. 53).
64
See E/CN.4/2005/103, para. 52.
65
See also European Court of Human Rights, Soering v. United Kingdom, N° 14038/88, 
Judgement of 7 July 1989. 
66
See for example, European Court of Human Rights,