CAT/C/GBR/CO/5 degrading treatment or punishment 3 and the majority of special advocates (memorandums to the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the Justice and Security Bill, June 2012 and February 2013). The Committee notes in particular that (arts. 2, 15 and 16): (a) Special advocates have very limited ability to conduct cross-examination and cannot discuss the full content of confidential material with their client, thus undermining the right to a fair trial; (b) A good amount of closed evidence is heavily reliant on information from secret intelligence sources and may contain second- or third-hand hearsay or other material and statements that may have been obtained by torture, which would not be admissible in ordinary criminal or civil proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made; (c) Closed material procedures may adversely impact on the possibility of establishing State responsibility and accountability. The Committee recommends that all measures used to restrict or limit fair trial guarantees based on national security grounds be fully compliant with the Convention. The State party should in particular: (a) Address the concerns raised with regard to the Justice and Security Act 2013 by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the special advocates; (b) Ensure that intelligence and other sensitive material be subject to possible disclosure if a court determines that it contains evidence of human rights violations such as torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; (c) Ensure that the Justice and Security Act 2013 will not become an obstacle to accountability for State involvement or complicity in torture, cruel inhuman or degrading treatment, nor will it adversely impact on the right of victims to obtain redress, remedy and fair and adequate compensation. Non-jury trials in Northern Ireland 13. The Committee notes with appreciation the measures taken in Northern Ireland in the context of the security normalization programme but regrets that the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 retains the possibility of the conduct of non-jury trials, despite the apparent consensus among a broad range of actors that the problem of juror intimidation in Northern Ireland still needs to be demonstrated (art. 2). The Committee recommends that the State party take due consideration of the principles of necessity and proportionality when deciding the renewal of emergency powers in Northern Ireland, and particularly non-jury trial provisions. It encourages the State party to continue moving towards security normalization in Northern Ireland and to envisage alternative juror protection measures. National preventive mechanism 14. The Committee, fully cognizant of the State party’s willingness to promote experience sharing, notes that the practice of seconding State officials working in places of deprivation of liberty to National Preventive Mechanism bodies raises concerns as to the guarantee of full independence to be expected from such bodies (art. 2). 3 http://www.internationallawbureau.com/index.php/un-special-rapporteur-on-torture-criticises-uksecret-courts-plan/. 5