Article 3 CAT 1984 codifies the principle of NON-REFOULEMENT:

Question

Accepted Answer

B. no State Party shall expel, return ('refouler') or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to TORTURE

1. Article 3(1) CAT: 'No State Party shall expel, return (refouler) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.'
2. Article 3(2): for the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.
3. The CAT principle of non-refoulement is ABSOLUTE — even for persons who pose security threats (Soering v UK, ECHR 1989; Chahal v UK, ECHR 1996).
4. Hence option B is correct.
_Source: UDHR 1948 / ICCPR 1966 / ICESCR 1966 / CAT 1984 / CEDAW 1979 / CRC 1989 / PHRA 1993 / Constitution Part III — Convention Against Torture 1984, Article 3_

Answer

no State may expel any person under any circumstances (cf. Convention Against Torture 1984, Article 3) (cf. Convention Against Torture 1984, Article 3) (cf. Convention Against Torture 1984, Article 3)

Answer

refoulement is permitted for political reasons (cf. Convention Against Torture 1984, Article 3) (cf. Convention Against Torture 1984, Article 3) (cf. Convention Against Torture 1984, Article 3)

Answer

return is permitted if requested by another State (cf. Convention Against Torture 1984, Article 3) (cf. Convention Against Torture 1984, Article 3) (cf. Convention Against Torture 1984, Article 3)