CAT/C/IDN/CO/2 page 11 The State party should establish consistent and comprehensive standards for independent monitoring mechanisms of all places of detention, ensuring that any body established, at the local or the national level, has a strong and impartial mandate and adequate resources. International judicial cooperation 27. The Committee is concerned with the State party’s lack of international judicial cooperation in investigating, prosecuting or extraditing perpetrators of acts of gross human rights violations, especially with regard to acts perpetrated in East Timor in 1999. Furthermore, it is deeply troubled at evidence that alleged perpetrators of war crimes wanted by Interpol, such as Colonel Siagian Burhanuddhin, for whom Interpol has issued a red notice, are currently serving in the Indonesian military forces. The Committee regrets the refusal of the State party to provide information on the result of its cooperation with United Nations and Timorese institutions, especially as full cooperation was recommended by the Committee in its previous concluding observations. The Committee is further concerned that the Commission on Truth and Friendship between Indonesia and Timor-Leste has a mandate to recommend amnesties, including for those involved in gross human rights violations (arts. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9). The State party should fully cooperate with Timorese, United Nations and relevant international institutions, in particular by providing assistance in investigations or court proceedings, including affording full access to relevant files, authorizing visits and transferring suspects wanted by Interpol or other relevant authorized bodies. The State party should investigate actively and secure alleged suspects of human rights violations, who should be extradited or prosecuted in the State party. The State party should not establish nor engage in any reconciliation mechanism that promotes amnesties for perpetrators of acts of torture, war crimes or crimes against humanity. Non-refoulement and risk of torture (art. 3) 28. The Committee is concerned by the failure of the State party to clarify how it includes in its national laws or practice the prohibition on returning a person to a country where he or she faces a substantial risk of torture, and hence how the State party ensures that its obligations under article 3 of the Convention are fulfilled (art. 3). Under no circumstances should the State party expel, return or extradite a person to a State where there are substantial grounds for believing that the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture. When determining the applicability of its obligations under article 3 of the Convention, the State party should examine thoroughly the merits of each individual case, ensure that adequate judicial mechanisms for the review of the decision are in place and sufficient legal defence available for each person subject to extradition, and ensure effective post-return monitoring arrangements.