- 58 (v) Whether the assurances concerns treatment which is legal or illegal in the receiving State.244 (vi) Whether they have been given by a Contracting State.245 (vii) The length and strength of bilateral relations between the sending and receiving States, including the receiving State’s record in abiding by similar assurances.246 (viii) Whether compliance with the assurances can be objectively verified through diplomatic or other monitoring mechanisms, including providing unfettered access to the applicant’s lawyers.247 (ix) whether there is an effective system of protection against torture in the receiving State, including whether it is willing to cooperate with international monitoring mechanisms (including international human rights NGOs), and whether it is willing to investigate allegations of torture and to punish those responsible.248 (x) Whether the applicant has previously been ill-treated in the receiving State.249 (xi) Whether the reliability of the assurances has been examined by the domestic courts of the sending/Contracting State.250 181. Meanwhile, the Human Rights Committee has considered that: “The existence of diplomatic assurances, their content and the existence and implementation of enforcement mechanisms are all factual elements relevant to the overall determination of whether, in fact, a real risk of proscribed illtreatment exists.”251 This Committee, and also the Committee against Torture, have emphasized the need for mechanisms for monitoring the enforcement of the assurances and other provisions so as to ensure they are implemented.252 citing: ECHR, Case of Chahal v. The United Kingdom [GS], No. 22414/93. Judgment of November 15, 1996, paras. 105 to 107. 244 ECHR, Case of Othman (Abu Qatada) v. The United Kingdom, No. 8139/09. Judgment of January 17, 2012, para. 189, citing, inter alia: ECHR, Case of Cipriani v. Italy, No. 221142/07. Decision of March 30, 2010; Case of Saudi v. Spain, No. 22871/06, Decision of September 18, 2006; Case of Ismaili v. Germany, No. 58128/00, Decision of March 15, 2001; Case of Nivette v. France, No. 44190/98. Decision of July 3, 2001, and Case of Einhorn v. France No. 71555/01. Decision of October 16, 2001. 245 ECHR, Case of Othman (Abu Qatada) v. The United Kingdom, No. 8139/09. Judgment of January 17, 2012, para. 189, citing: ECHR, Case of Chentiev and Ibragimov v. Slovakia, Nos. 21022/08 and 51946/08. Decision of September 14, 2010, and Case of Gasayev v. Spain, No. 48514/06. Decision of February 17, 2009. 246 ECHR, Case of Othman (Abu Qatada) v. The United Kingdom, No. 8139/09. Judgment of January 17, 2012, para. 189, citing: ECHR, Case of Babar Ahmad and Others v. The United Kingdom, Nos. 24027/07, 11949/08, 36742/08, 66911/09 and 67354/09. Judgment of April 10, 2012, paras. 107 and 108; Case of AlMoayad v. Germany, No. 35865/03. Decision of February 20, 2007, para. 68. 247 ECHR, Case of Othman (Abu Qatada) v. The United Kingdom, No. 8139/09. Judgment of January 17, 2012, para. 189, citing, inter alia: ECHR, Case of Chentiev and Ibragimov v. Slovakia, Nos. 21022/08 and 51946/08. Decision of September 14, 2010, and Case of Gasayev v. Spain, No. 48514/06. Decision of February 17, 2009, and, to the contrary, Case of Ben Khemais v. Italy, No. 246/07. Judgment of February 24, 2009, para. 61; Case of Ryabikin v. Russia, No. 8320/04. Judgment of June 19, 2008, para. 119, and Case of Kolesnik v. Russia, No. 26876/08, Judgment of June 17, 2010, para. 73. 248 ECHR, Case of Othman (Abu Qatada) v. The United Kingdom, No. 8139/09. Judgment of January 17, 2012, para. 189, citing: ECHR, Case of Ben Khemais v. Italy, No. 246/07. Judgment of February 24, 2009, paras. 59 and 60; Case of Soldatenko v. Ukraine, No. 2440/07. Judgment of October 23, 2008, para. 73, and Case of Koktysh v. Ukraine, No. 43707/07. Judgment of December 10, 2009, para. 63. 249 ECHR, Case of Othman (Abu Qatada) v. The United Kingdom, No. 8139/09. Judgment of January 17, 2012, para. 189, citing: ECHR, Case of Koktysh v. Ukraine, No. 43707/07. Judgment of December 10, 2009, para. 64. 250 ECHR, Case of Othman (Abu Qatada) v. The United Kingdom, No. 8139/09. Judgment of January 17, 2012, para. 189 citing: ECHR, Case of Gasayev v. Spain, No.48514/06. Decision of February 17, 2009; Case of Babar Ahmad and Others v. The United Kingdom, Nos. 24027/07, 11949/08, 36742/08, 66911/09 and 67354/09. Judgment of April 10, 2012, para. 106, and Case of Al-Moayad v. Germany, No. 35865/03. Decision of February 20, 2007, paras. 66 to 69. 251 UN, Human Rights Committee, Case of Mohammed Alzery v. Sweden, Communication No.1416/2005, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/88/D/1416/2005, November 10, 2006, para. 11.3 252 Cf. UN, Human Rights Committee, Case of Mohammed Alzery v. Sweden, Communication No. 1416/2005, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/88/D/1416/2005, November 10, 2006, para. 11.5; the Committee against Torture, Case of Agiza v. Sweden, Communication No. 233/2003, U.N. Doc. CAT/C/34/D/233/2003, May 20, 2006, para. 13(4), and Case of Elif Pelit v. Azerbaijan Communication No. 281/2005, U.N. Doc. CAT/C/38/D/281/2005, May 1, 2007, para. 11.