74 232. The principle of non-refoulement because of the risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment has been explicitly recognized in human rights instruments,203 and in interpretations of the scope of the obligations arising from the general ban on torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment established in international instruments in terms analogous to Article 5 of the American Convention. The European Court and the Human Rights Committee have interpreted the prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment established in Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and in Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as preventing the return of individuals who, if returned, would face a real risk of being subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. 233. As for the international responsibility engaged in such cases, either through extradition or deportation, in the case of Garabayev v. Russia, the European Court summarized its case law on the subject dating back to the case of Soering v. the United Kingdom, as follows: It is the settled case-law of the Court that extradition by a Contracting State may give rise to an issue under Article 3, and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention, where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person in question would, if extradited, face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 in the receiving country. The establishment of such responsibility inevitably involves an assessment of conditions in the requesting country against the standards of Article 3 of the Convention. Nonetheless, there is no question of adjudicating on or establishing the responsibility of the receiving country, whether under general international law, under the Convention or otherwise. In so far as any liability under the Convention is or may be incurred, it is liability incurred by the extraditing Contracting State by reason of its having taken action which has as a direct consequence the exposure of an individual to proscribed ill-treatment (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, pp. 35-36, §§ 89-91; Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 36, § 107; and H.L.R. v. France, 29 April 204 1997, Reports 1997-III, p. 758, § 37). . In determining whether it has been shown that the applicant runs a real risk, if expelled, of suffering treatment proscribed by Article 3, the Court will assess the issue in the light of all the material placed before it, or, if necessary, material obtained proprio motu. The Court must be satisfied that the assessment made by the authorities of the Contracting State is adequate and sufficiently supported by domestic materials as well as by materials originating from other, reliable and objective sources. The existence of the risk must be assessed primarily with reference to those facts which were known or ought to have been known to the Contracting State at the time of the expulsion (see Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, cited above, 205 p. 36, § 107). 234. The European Court, therefore, wrote that in line with its case-law, the Court needs to establish whether there existed a real risk of ill-treatment in case of extradition and whether this risk 203 See, Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Article 3; InterAmerican Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, Article 13, fourth paragraph. 204 European Court of Human Rights. Case of Garabayev v. Russia. Application No. 38411/02. Judgment of June 7, 2007. Final January 30, 2008. Para. 73. 205 European Court of Human Rights. Case of Garabayev v. Russia. Application No. 38411/02. Judgment of June 7, 2007. Final January 30, 2008. Para. 74.