GENEVA (28 July 2026) – As governments move to
accelerate removals, expand third-country return
arrangements and reshape migration systems, a UN expert*
today warned that no new policy or bilateral deal can
override the absolute ban on returning a person to
torture.
“States have the right to control their
borders, remove people who have no lawful right to remain
and extradite persons accused of serious crimes. But there
is an absolute line: no one can be sent to a place where
they face a real risk of torture,” said Alice Jill
Edwards, the Special Rapporteur on torture.
“Returns
may be faster. Procedures may be reformed. States may
cooperate with third countries. What they cannot do is
design the individual out of the process.”
The
warning follows renewed European debate around migration and
the European Convention on Human Rights, including the
Council of Europe’s recent Chiinău Declaration and the
European Union’s new so-called ‘Return Regulation’. It
also comes amid concern over collective and third-country
removals from the United States of America to African and
Latin American countries, mass deportations amid xenophobic
unrest in South Africa as well as numerous other situations
involving alleged refoulement.
In a new position paper
(https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/tools-and-resources/position-paper-non-refoulement-and-prohibition-torture),
Edwards said current debates over mass removals, bilateral
return arrangements and third-country ‘return hubs’ risk
creating the false impression that international law
prevents States from managing migration or pursuing criminal
accountability. “International law does not require open
borders and it does not provide safe haven for criminals. It
does require lawful solutions,” she said.
Advertisement – scroll to continue reading
The
Special Rapporteur stressed that every person facing removal
must have access to a meaningful, fair and individualised
assessment where a risk of torture or other prohibited
ill-treatment is raised.
“Collective expulsions and
blanket assumptions are no substitute for individual
assessment. Governments cannot decide that an entire group
is safe to return, or that everyone sent to a particular
country faces the same risk,” the expert said. “Country
conditions matter, but the deciding factor must be what will
happen to the individual concerned.”
She warned that
transferring people through third countries does not remove
the responsibility of the sending State. “You cannot
outsource your way around the torture ban. States must
consider the whole chain of transfer, including the risk of
onward removal, detention, prolonged legal limbo and abuse
in transit.”
Edwards acknowledged that diplomatic
assurances could play a limited role in managing identified
risks, but warned they must never become “paper promises
used to legitimise an otherwise unlawful
return.”
“The debate has become unnecessarily
polarised. The choice is not between effective transfers and
human rights. States may deport, extradite and cooperate
internationally. But no political pressure, migration
crisis, security concern or criminal allegation makes
torture lawful,” the expert said.
“The rule is
simple: return people lawfully. Prosecute criminals. Protect
victims. But do not send anyone to torture.”
*The
expert: Alice Jill Edwards, the Special Rapporteur on
torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment
(https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-torture)
Special
Rapporteurs/Independent Experts/Working Groups are
independent human rights experts appointed by the United
Nations Human Rights Council. Together, these experts are
referred to as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights
Council
(https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures-human-rights-council).
Special Procedures experts work on a voluntary basis; they
are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work.
While the UN Human Rights office acts as the secretariat for
Special Procedures, the experts serve in their individual
capacity and are independent fromany government or
organisation, including OHCHR and the UN. Any views or
opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not
necessarily represent those of the UN or
OHCHR.
Country-specific observations and
recommendations by the UN human rights mechanisms, including
the special procedures, the treaty bodies and the Universal
Periodic Review, can be found on the Universal Human Rights
Index
https://uhri.ohchr.org/en/
