CAT/C/CAN/CO/6 (d) Information obtained by torture has been reportedly used to form the basis of security certificates, as evidenced by the case of Hassan Almrei. The Committee recommends that the State party reconsider its policy of using administrative detention and immigration legislation to detain and remove noncitizens on the ground of national security, inter alia, by extensively reviewing the use of the security certificates and ensuring the prohibition of the use of information obtained by torture, in line with relevant domestic and international law. In that regard, the State party should implement the outstanding recommendations made by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention following its mission to Canada in 2005, in particular that detention of terrorism suspects be imposed in the framework of criminal procedure and in accordance with the corresponding safeguards enshrined in the relevant international law (E/CN.4/2006/7/Add.2, para. 92). Immigration detention 13. While noting the State party’s need for a legal reform to combat human smuggling, the Committee is deeply concerned about Bill C-31 (the Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act), given that, with its excessive Ministerial discretion, this Act would (arts. 2, 3, 11 and 16): (a) Introduce mandatory detention for individuals who enter irregularly the State party’s territory; and (b) Exclude “irregular arrivals” and individuals who are nationals of designated “safe” countries from having an appeal hearing of a rejected refugee claim. This increases the risk that those individuals will be subject to refoulement. The Committee recommends the State party to modify Bill C-31, in particular its provisions regulating mandatory detention and denial of appeal rights, given the potential violation of rights protected by the Convention. Furthermore, the State party should ensure that: (a) Detention is used as a measure of last resort, a reasonable time limit for detention is set, and non-custodial measures and alternatives to detention are made available to persons in immigration detention; and (b) All refugee claimants are provided with access to a full appeal hearing before the Refugee Appeal Division. Universal jurisdiction 14. The Committee notes with interest that any person present in the State party’s territory who is suspected of having committed acts of torture may be prosecuted and tried in the State party under the Criminal Code and the Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act. However, the very low number of prosecutions for war crimes and crimes against humanity, including torture offences, under the aforementioned laws raises issues with respect to the State party’s policy in exercising universal jurisdiction. The Committee is also concerned about numerous and continuous reports that the State party’s policy of resorting to immigration processes to remove or expel perpetrators from its territory rather than subjecting them to the criminal process creates actual or potential loopholes for impunity. According to reports before the Committee, a number of individuals who are allegedly responsible for torture and other crimes under international law have been expelled and not faced justice in their countries of origin. In that regard, the Committee notes with regret the recent initiative to publicize the names and faces of 30 individuals living in Canada who had been found inadmissible to Canada on grounds they may have been responsible for war crimes or crimes against humanity. If they are apprehended and deported, they may escape justice and remain unpunished (arts. 5, 7 and 8). 4