Act of 5 May 2006, administrative detention can also be applied in some cases to asylum-seekers, who are then placed in a closed facility within the Luxembourg Prison for a period of up to 12 months to prevent evasion of any subsequent deportation order; this could constitute administrative detention without judicial supervision (arts. 3 and 11). The State party should take the requisite legislative and administrative measures to clarify the situation of asylum-seekers for whom no deportation order has been issued in order to ensure that, in the absence of behaviour that might compromise security or public order, they are not detained and are properly treated. In particular, the State party should ensure that such asylum-seekers are brought before a judge so that he or she may rule on the legality of their detention. The State party should also guarantee that they have a right to effective remedies. It should also take appropriate measures to ensure that aliens at the disposal of the authorities are placed in a facility that is separate from a penal correction facility. (6) The Committee is concerned about the provisions of article 6, paragraph 12, of the Act of 5 May 2006, which stipulates that “the asylum-seeker may be handed over or extradited, where applicable, either to a State member of the European Union pursuant to the obligations arising from a European arrest warrant or, for other reasons, to a third State, or to an international criminal tribunal or court”; in some cases, this provision may be inconsistent with the principle of non-refoulement as laid down in article 3 of the Convention (art. 3). The State party should take the requisite legislative measures to amend article 6, paragraph 12, of the Act of 5 May 2006 on asylum by including a provision stipulating that no person may be returned, expelled or extradited to a State where there are substantial grounds for believing that that person would be in danger of being subjected to torture. (7) While taking note of some of the clarifications provided by the delegation of Luxembourg regarding the circumstances surrounding the forced removal of Mr. Igor Beliatskii, the Committee regrets that the State party has not ordered an official investigation to ascertain why the officers responsible for the removal operation resorted to certain practices, such as the wearing of a mask and the use of a BodyCuff, which might constitute degrading treatment of the person being removed (arts. 3, 12 and 16). The State party should take the necessary steps to order an investigation when there are grounds for believing that a person may have been subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, including during removal operations. The State party should also allow the presence of human rights observers or independent physicians during all forced removals. It should also systematically allow a medical examination to be conducted prior to this form of removal and whenever an attempted removal has been unsuccessful. Provisions concerning the detention and treatment of arrested persons (8) While noting that the Charter of Ethical Values of the Grand Ducal Police stipulates in appendix 4 that “(a police officer) shall have absolute respect for persons, without discrimination of any kind”, the Committee is concerned about reports that foreign detainees are subjected to arbitrary behaviour and racist or xenophobic insults by law enforcement and prison personnel (arts. 11 and 16). The State party should take the necessary steps to: (a) Provide law enforcement and prison personnel with more training in respect for the physical and psychological integrity of detainees, regardless of their origin, religion or sex; (b) Make such behaviour a criminal offence; (c) Order systematic investigations and, in all confirmed cases, bring the accused before the competent courts. 68