1. Assessing the Risk of Torture or Ill-Treatment to Pakistani Detainees Transferred from the DFIP Torture within the Pakistani criminal justice system and security apparatus is seen by independent observers and human rights organizations to be endemic and widespread. 143 Reports indicate that individuals detained for national security reasons are particularly vulnerable to torture and mistreatment. 144 There are numerous, credible reports of Pakistani armed forces and intelligence agencies engaging in mistreatment and torture of detainees in their custody either to extract confessions or for intimidation purposes. 145 Any humane treatment assurances must take into account this record and fully address the potential risks associated with transferring individuals to Pakistan. Humane treatment assurances should also take into account the individual characteristics of each detainee. 146 In particular, the United States should carefully examine the risks to individuals suspected of ties with groups perceived by elements of the Pakistani state to be security threats or associated with acts deemed prejudicial to Pakistan. Caution should also be taken in cases of 143 “Pakistan: torture in custody has spread like a cancer in the country”, Asian Human Rights Commission, 28 June, 2010, http://www.humanrights.asia/news/ahrc-news/AHRC-STM-134-2010; “Stakeholders submission concerning the Universal Periodic Review of Pakistan”, Asian Legal Resource Centre & Christians Against Torture France, 23 April, 2012, http://www.alrc.net/PDF/ALRC-UPR-14-002-2012.pdf; “Annual report: Pakistan 2013”, Amnesty International, 23 May, 2013, http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/reports/annual-reportpakistan-2013?page=show; “Civil society urges Govt. enact law to end torture”, Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, 26 June, 2013, http://hrcp-web.org/hrcpweb/civil-society-urges-govt-enact-law-to-end-torture/. 144 Human Rights Watch, “Cruel Britannia: British complicity in the torture and ill-treatment of terror suspects in Pakistan”, November 2009, ps. 10-11; Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, “Blinkered slide into chaos”, June 2011, http://hrcp-web.org/hrcpweb/wp-content/pdf/ff/6.pdf; Human Rights Watch, ”’We can torture, kill or keep you for years’: Enforced disappearances by Pakistan security forces in Balochistan”, July 2011; Amnesty International, “The hands of cruelty”, December 2012, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA33/020/2012/en/192d6b7c-5b74-40ee-9ac72919cae14daf/asa330202012en.pdf. 145 Ibid. The case of the ‘Adiala 11’ exemplifies the impunity with which armed forces and intelligence agencies operate in the context of national security. The case involves 11 men, some of whom were subject to enforced disappearances in parts of Punjab and FATA from 2007 to 2008 and subsequently detained in Adiala Jail, Rawalpindi. So far, four of the 11 detainees have died in custody, highlighting the poor conditions in which they are held. These men are held beyond the rule of law because Pakistan’s intelligence agencies believe them to be morally—if not legally—culpable. See Amnesty International, “The hands of cruelty”, ps. 28-31; “Adiala missing inmates: ISI say terror suspects “held on moral grounds’”, The Express Tribune, 21 January, 2013, http://tribune.com.pk/story/496957/adiala-missing-inmates-sc-summons-case-review-report/ 146 Assessments of the risk of torture must be individualized and must take into account all factors including the existence in the receiving state of a pattern of a “gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.” See Article 3(2) United Nations Convention against Torture; Chahal at 97-105; Saadi at 147; Agiza at 13.3; Othman at 187; Sameh Sami Khouzam v. Attorney General of the United States; Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; Assistant Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; Nos. 07-2926 & 08-1094, US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 5 December 2008, p. 45. Furthermore, the test under Article 3(2) UNCAT is absolute and cannot be balanced against national security concerns. See Gorki Ernesto Tapia Paez v. Sweden, CAT/C/18/D/39/1996, UN Committee Against Torture (CAT), 28 April, 1997, http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b6de10.html; Human Rights Watch, “Still at risk”, p. 8. 38