78 245. As previously noted, in Saadi v. Italy, the European Court did not elaborate on how the diplomatic assurances should be assessed, as it has in so many other cases cited below. In Saadi v. Italy, the Court repeated what it had said in Chahal v. the United Kingdom, to the effect that what has to be examined is whether such assurances provide, “in their practical application, a sufficient guarantee.”218 The basic point that the European Court established in this case is that “[t]he weight to be given to assurances from the receiving State depends, in each case, on the circumstances prevailing at the material time.”219 246. Therefore, the risk in the receiving or requesting State must be assessed, including the scope and practical application of the assurances offered, on a case-by-case basis. 247. The European Court has held that in determining what the practical application of the assurances will be and the weight they should be assigned, the first question that has to be answered is whether the general human rights situation in the receiving State precludes the acceptance of assurances, no matter what the circumstances. However, only in exceptional cases can the general situation in a country be the only reason for refusing to assign any weight to the assurances offered.220 248. The analysis that the European Court usually does is based on two main elements: the quality of the assurances offered and the determination of whether, given the practices in the receiving State, those assurances can be deemed reliable. This Court has taken up a considerable number of cases that have enabled it to develop a series of factors that are relevant when examining these two main elements. The European Court recently summarized those factors in Othman (Abu Qatada) v. the United Kingdom.221 Of the factors cited, the Commission would single out the following, with their respective case history: (i) (ii) (iii) Whether the terms of the assurances have been disclosed to the Court.222 Whether the assurances are specific or are general and vague.223 Who has given the assurances and whether that person can bind the receiving State. 224 218 European Court of Human Rights. Saadi v. Italy. 28 February 2008. Para 148. Citing Chahal v. the United Kingdom. Para. 105. 219 European Court of Human Rights. Saadi v. Italy. 28 February 2008. Para 148. Citing Chahal v. the United Kingdom. Para. 105. 220 European Court of Human Rights. Gaforov v. Russia. Application no. 25404/09, para. 138, 21 October 2010; Sultanov v. Russia, Application no. 15303/09, para. 73, 4 November 2010; Yuldashev v. Russia No. 1248/09, para. 85, 8 July 2010. 221 ECHR. Case of Othman (Abu Qatada) v. The United Kingdom. Application no. 8139/09. Judgment of 17 January 2012. Final 9 May 2012. Para. 189. 222 ECHR. Ryabikin v. Russia, no. 8320/04, p. 119, 19 June 2008); Case of Muminov v. Russia, no. 42502/06, p. 97, 11 December 2008). Cited in: ECHR. Case of Othman (Abu Qatada) v. The United Kingdom. Application no. 8139/09. Judgment of 17 January 2012. Final 9 May 2012. Para. 189. 223 ECHR. Klein v. Russia, no. 24268/08, p. 55, 1 April 2010; Khaydarov v. Russia, no. 21055/09, P. 111, 20 May 2010. Cited in: ECHR. Case of Othman (Abu Qatada) v. The United Kingdom. Application no. 8139/09. Judgment of 17 January 2012. Final 9 May 2012. Para. 189. 224 ECHR. Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, p. 344); Abu Salem v. Portugal, no. 26844/04, 9 May 2006; Garayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 53688/08, p. 74, 10 June 2010; Baysakov and Others v. Ukraine, no. 54131/08, p. 51, 18 February 2010; Soldatenko v. Ukraine, no. 2440/07, p. 73, 23 October 2008. Cited in ECHR. Case of Othman (Abu Qatada) v. The United Kingdom. Application no. 8139/09. Judgment of 17 January 2012. Final 9 May 2012. Para. 189.