CAT/C/GBR/CO/6 girl’s life or health due to uncertainty about when lawful terminations may be performed and fear of being subjected to criminal proceedings. While noting the State party’s view that the devolved government of Northern Ireland should take up the matter as well as its decision to allow women from Northern Ireland to have access to abortion services in England, the Committee remains concerned that there is an increased risk of harmful physical and mental health outcomes for women who are compelled to travel to other jurisdictions to receive such services and notes with concern reports that women and girls in Northern Ireland are not in fact provided with information about how to access services in England and face a risk of being denied necessary post-abortion care upon their return (arts. 2 and 16). 47. The Committee recommends that the State party ensure that all women and girls in the State party, including in Northern Ireland, have effective access to the means of terminating a pregnancy when not doing so is likely to result in severe pain and suffering, such as when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, when the life or health of the pregnant person is at risk and in cases of fatal fetal impairment. The State party should also ensure that women and girls in Northern Ireland have effective access to post-abortion health care and that neither patients nor their doctors face criminal sanctions or other threats for seeking or providing such care. Universal jurisdiction 48. The Committee notes the information provided by the delegation that three prosecutions for torture have been undertaken in the State party under universal jurisdiction laws, one of which is currently in progress. However, it remains concerned about reports that the State party’s practice of granting special mission immunity has impeded the exercise of universal jurisdiction over perpetrators of torture (art. 5). 49. The State party should: (a) Consider strengthening its ability to exercise universal jurisdiction over perpetrators of torture present on the territory of the State party by creating a specialized unit within the Metropolitan Police and the Crown Prosecution Service; (b) Publish information concerning the State party’s policy on granting special mission immunity, and take measures to ensure that the State party does not grant immunity to individuals alleged to have committed torture. Civil jurisdiction for redress 50. The Committee regrets that victims of torture and ill-treatment present in the State party who have suffered harm outside the territory of the State party and at the hands of foreign States and their officials are not able to bring civil suits in United Kingdom courts for redress in cases in which those States and officials have immunity from suit. In that regard, the Committee regrets the State party’s reluctance to adopt the Torture (Damages) Bill, which would provide universal civil jurisdiction over some civil claims (art. 14). 51. The Committee calls upon the State party to consider reviewing its legislation in order to ensure that all victims of torture are able to access remedy and obtain redress, wherever the acts of torture have occurred and regardless of the nationality of the perpetrator or the victim, as recommended by the Committee in its previous concluding observations (CAT/C/GBR/CO/5, para. 22). As indicated in paragraph 22 of its general comment No. 3 (2012) on the implementation of article 14, the Committee has commended the efforts of States parties for providing civil remedies for victims who were subjected to torture or ill-treatment outside their territory. This is particularly important when a victim is unable to obtain redress in the territory where the violation took place. Asylum and immigration procedures 52. The Committee notes with concern that the State party does not publish statistics indicating the number of persons it has expelled or returned to other countries despite these persons having expressed concern that they face a risk of torture in the destination country. 11