CAT/C/GBR/CO/6 Nor does the State party publish statistics indicating the number of persons it has decided not to expel or return to countries where these persons have been found to face a risk of torture. Noting that a large proportion of asylum denials are reportedly overturned on appeal, the Committee expresses serious concern about reports that Home Office caseworkers very frequently do not apply the appropriate standard of proof applicable to asylum claims and arbitrarily reject credible medical evidence of past torture, resulting in the arbitrary denial of asylum claims made by victims of past torture. In this context, the Committee is concerned about information provided by the delegation that in 2018 43 persons were returned to Sri Lanka and 50 others to Afghanistan. The Committee is also concerned that the State party maintains a list of countries considered safe for the purposes of certifying asylum claims as “clearly unfounded” and with respect to which appeals of a negative decision must be brought from outside the United Kingdom, and that the list currently includes Ukraine, where the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment recently reported receiving persistent allegations of torture and ill-treatment at the time of the arrest and during interrogation in all parts of the country (A/HRC/40/59/Add.3, para. 109) (arts. 3 and 16). 53. The State party should: (a) Compile detailed statistical data on the number of asylum applications involving torture claims and their outcome, disaggregated by the applicants’ country of origin and/or return, and provide this information to the Committee; (b) Review the application of the standard of proof in asylum decisions and improve performance in this area, including with respect to caseworkers’ evaluation of medical evidence of past torture and particularly with respect to negative determinations on applications for asylum from nationals of Afghanistan and Sri Lanka; (c) Review the State party’s inclusion of Ukraine on the list of safe countries for return of asylum seekers, particularly in light of the recent findings of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Safeguards in the context of immigration detention 54. The Committee is very concerned by reports that victims of torture are routinely detained for immigration purposes in the State party and that the State party’s guidance for identifying whether a person being considered for immigration detention is an “adult at risk” 3 and rule 35 (3) of the Detention Centre Rules 2001 are largely ineffective at identifying victims of torture and have not resulted in the release from detention of the vast majority of those people who are at risk of suffering serious harm as a consequence of detention. The Committee expresses concern that the time limit for immigration detention is still not defined by law, and that the State party has no current plans to change this policy (arts. 2 and 11). 55. The State party should: (a) Ensure that the expert statements of health professionals about torture victims and other persons at particular risk of suffering harm as a consequence of detention are given due consideration by caseworkers who are not health professionals and that individuals identified as being at risk of future harm in detention receive the necessary care and protection; (b) Refrain from detaining irregular migrants and asylum seekers for prolonged periods, use detention as a measure of last resort and for the shortest period possible and continue the application of non-custodial measures; (c) Consider setting in law a reasonable time limit on the duration of administrative immigration detention. 3 12 Home Office, “Adults at risk in immigration detention” (6 March 2019).