Forthcoming in the Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law (27) opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, birth or other status, or any other ground impermissible under international law’.130 Though the Commission ended up deleting the expression ‘threats to one’s freedom’ on the insistence of some states,131 this latter provision expands on the prohibition of refoulement under Art. 33(1) of the Refugee Convention, which was already incorporated into another draft article. The existence of overlapping draft articles – one on refugees, and another on aliens in general – is bound to create some confusion. Another important addition was the prohibition of refoulement to a country where there is a real risk of death penalty, although contingent on diplomatic assurances that capital punishment will not be imposed or carried out. Even though the right to life had already been interpreted as entailing non-refoulement obligations,132 the Commission felt the need to push for the progressive development of the law in two respects. First, by prohibiting states that may have the death penalty in their legislation, but nonetheless do not apply it in practice, from expelling an individual to a country where they may face capital punishment. Secondly, by extending the scope of protection to situations where there is a real risk that a death penalty will be imposed, and not only to instances where capital punishment has already been imposed.133 The draft articles also include an additional layer of protection for those individuals subject to expulsion. For one, all expellees must have their human rights respected, without discrimination, and be treated humanely. These include the right to life, personal and physical integrity, and to have one’s family life respected. Vulnerable persons are also protected under the draft articles. In the event of an expulsion, voluntary departure should be preferred. UN ILC, ‘Draft Articles on the Expulsion of Aliens’, at Art. 14. In especial on the comments made by the United Kingdom and Canada. UNGA, ‘Expulsion of Aliens: Comments and Observations Received from Governments’ (21 March 2014) UN Doc. A/CN.4/669, at 50–51. 132 See e.g., Judge v Canada CCPR/C/78/D/829/1998 (13 August 2003); Ahani v. Canada CCPR/C/80/D/1051/2002 (29 March 2004); Warsame v. Canada CCPR/C/102/D/1959/2010 (21 July 2011). 133 UN ILC, ‘Draft Articles on Expulsion of Aliens’, at 34–35. 130 131 33 Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4816199