With the noble intentions of combating terrorism, numerous initiatives
in the form of counter-terrorism measures have appeared on the global scene. States
wanting to expel persons considered to be a threat to national security have aimed to
establish so-called diplomatic assurances as a guarantee that States well-known for
gross human rights violations will ensure that the person concerned is not exposed to
torture or ill-treatment. Reliance on these assurances has been questioned by many;
scholars, UN bodies and NGO’s, and practice shows that there is reason for concern.
Th is paper examines such reliance on diplomatic assurances by scrutinizing the
practice and the case-law of the UN treaty bodies, the European Court of Human
Rights (ECtHR) and the offi cial statements and reports of UN institutions such as
the Human Rights Council, Th e Offi cer of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights as well as the Special Rapporteurs. Unreliable monitoring mechanisms
and the lack of consequences in the case of a breach of such legally non-binding
agreements leads to the conclusion that these assurances may be solely hypothetical,
insignifi cant and of no real value.