152. Furthermore, according to the OHCHR: “The prohibition of refoulement under international human rights law applies to any form of removal or transfer of persons, regardless of their status, where there are substantial grounds for believing that the returnee would be at risk of irreparable harm upon return on account of torture, ill-treatment or other serious breaches of human rights obligations. As an inherent element of the prohibition of torture and other forms of ill-treatment, the principle of nonrefoulement is characterised by its absolute nature without any exception. In this respect, the scope of this principle under relevant human rights law treaties is broader than that contained in international refugee law.” 256 The OHCHR also states that the prohibition of refoulement “applies to all persons, irrespective of their citizenship, nationality, statelessness, or migration status, and it applies wherever a State exercises jurisdiction or effective control, even when outside of that State’s territory .257 They also pay particular attention to the position of children, saying that States must act in accordance with the best interests of the child.258 153. Within the ECHR system, like many other human rights systems, the prohibition on refoulment is absolute. This prohibition has been well established since the landmark judgment of Soering v. UK259 which established that the extradition of a German national to the United States to face charges of capital murder violated his right to be free from inhuman and degrading treatment rights under Article 3. More recently, in Al Husin v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, the ECtHR found there was a real risk that Syrian national Al Husin would be subjected to ill-treatment if deported from Bosnia to Syria, and that this deportation would thus violate Article 3.260 The Court ruled that in this case that if there are substantial grounds to believe that a person would face a real risk of illtreatment when being expelled, Article 3 implies an obligation not to expel the individual. In particular, the ECtHR held that the conduct of the person concerned, even if undesirable or dangerous, cannot be taken into account because the prohibition of torture is absolute.261 154. The UN General Assembly reaffirms the importance of full respect for the principle of nonrefoulement on a yearly basis in its resolution on UNHCR.262 256 OHCHR, ‘Global Compact for Migration Technical note: The principle of non-refoulement under international human rights law’ , available at: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Migration/GlobalCompactMigration/ThePrincipleNonRefoulementUnderInternationalHumanRightsLaw.pdf, p 1. 257 OHCHR, ‘Global Compact for Migration Technical note: The principle of non-refoulement under international human rights law’. 258 OHCHR, ‘Global Compact for Migration Technical note: The principle of non-refoulement under international human rights law’, p . 259 ECtHR, Soering v. UK (1989), Application no. 14038/88. 260 ECtHR, Al Husin v Bosnia and Herzegovina (2012), Application no. 3727/08. 261 ECtHR, Al Husin v Bosnia and Herzegovina (2012), Application no. 3727/08, para 49. 262 Most recently during its 73rd session in 2018: UNGA Res 73/151 (17 December 2018) UN Doc A/RES/73/151, preamble. 75