In a statement of 28 July 2026, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture addressed states that are restructuring how they carry out removals. The statement is general in scope rather than directed at any single country, and its central proposition is short enough to quote in full.
“You cannot outsource your way around the torture ban. States must consider the whole chain of transfer.”
Indirect refoulement
The principle behind that sentence is long established and is usually called indirect, or chain, refoulement. A state may not achieve by an intermediate step what it is prohibited from doing directly. If the country receiving a person can be expected to send them onward to a country where they face torture, the first transfer engages Article 3 just as the second would.
The practical implication is that the assessment cannot stop at the first destination. It has to take account of that country’s own removal practice, its treatment of people transferred to it, and whether it has any means or intention of onward transfer.
Individualised assessment
The Special Rapporteur also emphasised that every person facing removal requires a meaningful, individualised assessment, and that collective expulsions and blanket assumptions about a receiving country cannot substitute for a case-by-case evaluation of torture risk. This is consistent with the Committee against Torture‘s general approach to Article 3, which asks whether substantial grounds exist as to this person and this destination.
Diplomatic assurances
Where a receiving state gives an assurance that a person will not be ill-treated, the consistent position of torture-prevention bodies is that the assurance is evidence to be weighed, not a substitute for the assessment. Its weight depends on whether it is specific, whether compliance can be verified independently after transfer, and whether it is consistent with what is otherwise known about conditions in the country. The Special Rapporteur’s position paper on non-refoulement develops the analysis.
ICET’s our explainer on removal to a third country sets out how these principles apply where a person already holds protection against return to their own country.
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.