Can diplomatic assurances,in their practical application,provide effective protection against the risk of torture and ill treatment? A focus on the evolution of the pragmatic approach of the European Court of Human Rights in removal cases of suspected terrorists

In order to implement counterterrorism measures, governments have frequently resorted to the use of diplomatic assurances. This practice aims to facilitate and legitimize the removal of non-nationals to third states with dubious human rights records, contrary to the obligation not to refoule set out under international law. This article raises the question of whether such assurances provide, in practical terms, effective protection against the risk that the transferred person may be subjected to torture and ill treatment upon return. With the purpose of addressing this issue, it is essential to evaluate whether diplomatic assurances can be deemed adequate and reliable guarantees of safety against ill treatment. In this regard, the position taken by international and regional human rights bodies is of profound importance. For this reason, this article considers and comparatively analyses the existing jurisprudence on non-refoulement and diplomatic assurances of such bodies. In particular, it closely examines the pragmatic approach of the European Court of Human Rights, by focusing on the abundant case law on the removal of suspected terrorists.