Seven United Nations special procedures mandates issued a joint statement of 8 July 2025 setting out the standard that applies before any person is transferred to a country other than their own. The mandates included the Special Rapporteur on torture, the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, the Special Rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights, the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, and the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances.
The standard the experts stated
“International law is clear that no one shall be sent anywhere where there are substantial grounds for believing that the person would be in danger of being subjected to serious human rights violations such as torture, enforced disappearance or arbitrary deprivation of life.”
The formulation is worth reading closely. It says “anywhere”, not “back”. The prohibition is not limited to return to a country of origin; it governs transfer to any destination where the threshold of substantial grounds is met.
What prompted the statement
The experts referred to the transfer of eight men, reported to be nationals of Myanmar, Cuba, South Sudan, Mexico, Laos and Vietnam, on a flight to South Sudan. They also referred to a decision of the United States Supreme Court of 23 June 2025 suspending a lower court order that had restricted such transfers.
Why the joint character matters
Six thematic mandates and a working group signing one statement is not routine. It reflects that a single practice engages several distinct protections at once: the prohibition on torture and ill-treatment, the prohibition on enforced disappearance where a person’s fate or whereabouts becomes unknown after transfer, the right to life, and the procedural guarantees that make any of those enforceable.
How individual cases reach the mandates
United Nations special procedures receive individual communications and may issue urgent appeals to the states concerned. That route is open irrespective of whether a state has accepted the individual complaints procedure of the Committee against Torture under Article 22 of the Convention, which is a separate question and should be checked for each state. The Special Rapporteur on torture also maintains a position paper on non-refoulement setting out the mandate’s analysis of the obligation.
For the underlying legal framework, see our explainer on removal to a third country. If you are documenting a case and are unsure where to direct it, please contact us.
This article is published for educational purposes and is not legal advice. The law described here changed several times between 2025 and 2026. Anyone facing removal, or advising someone who is, should consult a qualified immigration lawyer. See also our explainer on removal to a third country.