Asylum, non-refoulement and extradition (15) Matters related to article 3 of the Convention, including: (a) Reports of more than 300 people returned this year to other neighbouring countries, according to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and the lack of safeguards to ensure respect for the obligation of non-refoulement under article 3 of the Convention; (b) The widespread and broad use of administrative expulsion according to article c18.8 of the Code of Administrative Offences for minor violations of immigration rules. The State party should ensure that no person is expelled, returned or extradited to a country where there are substantial grounds for believing that he/she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. The State party should further clarify the violations of immigration rules which may result in administrative expulsion and establish clear procedures to ensure they are implemented fairly. The State party should ensure compliance with the requirements of article 3 of the Convention for an independent, impartial and effective administrative or judicial review of the decision to expel. The State party should issue identity documents to all asylum-seekers at the outset of the asylum process, including at Sheremetyevo 2 airport. (16) The reported use of written assurances in the “refoulement” context, in circumstances where its minimum standards for such assurances, including effective post-return monitoring arrangements and appropriate due process guarantees followed, are not wholly clear and thus cannot be assessed for compatibility with article 3 of the Convention. The State party should provide the Committee with detailed statistical information on the number of assurances sought for the period since 2002, the persons concerned and the outcome of each case, as well as on minimum contents for any assurances. The State party should moreover establish and implement clear procedures for obtaining such assurances, adequate judicial mechanisms for review, as well as effective post-return monitoring mechanisms. Detention and places of deprivation of liberty (17) While noting the significant efforts undertaken by the State party (see paragraph 4), the Committee remains concerned at: (a) Conditions in detention facilities and the continuing problem of overcrowded penal institutions and juvenile institutions; (b) The failure of the new Criminal Procedure Code (2001) to impose mandatory limits on pretrial detention during judicial proceedings; (c) colonies. The situation of inadequate health care provided to persons in pretrial detention centres and prison The Committee encourages the State party to implement the Strategic framework for the development of the penitentiary system, which was adopted in September 2006, and to continue its efforts to address the problem of overcrowding in penal institutions and to improve conditions in prisons, including juvenile detention centres and pretrial detention facilities, to ensure their conformity with the requirements of the Convention. The State party should establish mandatory limits on pretrial detention during judicial proceedings. 33