CAT/C/GBR/CO/5 Deportations to Sri Lanka 20. The Committee notes that on 28 February 2013 the High Court ordered a suspension of the return of Tamils – whose asylum applications were not successful – to Sri Lanka, given the allegations and evidence that some Sri Lankan Tamils have been victims of torture and ill-treatment following their forced or voluntary removal from the State party. The Committee is nevertheless concerned that the State party has not yet reflected such evidence in its asylum policy (art. 3). The Committee recommends that the State party observe the safeguards to ensure respect for the principle of non-refoulement, including consideration of whether there are substantial grounds to indicate that an asylum seeker might be in danger of torture or ill-treatment upon deportation to his or her country of origin. The Committee calls on the State party to conduct a thorough risk assessment of situations covered by article 3 of the Convention, notably by taking into consideration evidence from Sri Lankans whose post-removal torture claims were found credible, and revise its country guidance accordingly. Shaker Aamer 21. The Committee notes with great concern the case of Shaker Aamer, the last British resident held in Guantanamo Bay, who has been detained without charges for over 11 years and whose condition is rapidly deteriorating, particularly in the context of the current hunger strike. The Committee regrets that despite the State party’s “best endeavours” to secure his release, there are no encouraging signs of this happening soon (arts. 2 and 16). The Committee urges the State party to consider all possible measures to ensure the prompt release and return to the United Kingdom of Shaker Aamer, who has been detained without charges for over 11 years. In this context, the State party should follow up on its June 2012 and May 2013 requests to the Secretary of Defence of the United States of America to exercise a “waiver”, as contained within the National Defence Authorisation Act 2012, to enable the release of Shaker Aamer. Universal jurisdiction 22. The Committee notes with satisfaction the reference made in the State party’s strategy for the Prevention of Torture (2011-2015) to the obligations under the Convention to ensure that there are no “safe havens” for individuals accused of torture, and welcomes legislative changes which widen the competence of United Kingdom courts to prosecute international crimes. The Committee is however concerned that, in parallel, legislation has been passed (Police and Social Responsibility Act, 2011), making it more difficult for private arrest warrants to be issued where a suspect is present in the State party’s territory (art. 5). The Committee recommends that the State party take all necessary steps to effectively exercise universal jurisdiction over persons allegedly responsible for acts of torture, including foreign perpetrators who are temporarily present in the United Kingdom. In addition, the Committee recommends that the State party fill the “impunity” gap, identified by the Human Rights Joint Committee in 2009 4 , by adopting the Torture (Damages) Bill that would provide universal civil jurisdiction over some civil claims. 4 8 United Kingdom, Parliament, Joint Committee on Human Rights, Closing the Impunity Gap: UK law on genocide (and related crimes) and redress for torture victims, 11 August 2009 (HL 153/HC 553), available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/4a81460c2.html.