Effective recourse procedures in closed centres (8) The Committee is concerned at the inadequate application of appeal procedures in the closed centres, although it notes that procedures for lodging complaints exist in theory. The Committee is likewise concerned by: (a) The fact that it is virtually impossible for persons who have been deported to lodge a complaint; (b) The difficulty of proving allegations because the circumstances of a deportation often mean that no third party - and thus no independent witness - present, as well as the difficulty of establishing the facts because the reports made by the deporting officers frequently refer to “resistance” on the part of the deportee, allegations that are difficult to corroborate, since the alien complainant, having been deported, is not present during the investigation; (c) The fact that the criteria for admissibility currently in force, in particular the limit of five days beginning from the moment the alleged rights violation occurred for the filing of a written complaint are too restrictive and do not provide for suspension of the deportation or expulsion (art. 13). The State party should establish an effective and transparent system for implementing the Convention at the domestic level and provide guarantees of independence and impartiality so that victims can exercise their right to lodge a complaint. The Committee recommends that the State party: (a) Ensure that the persons concerned are provided with ample information and consider ways of allowing complainants to appeal from their country of origin; (b) time limit; Review the criteria for admissibility, in particular with regard to the current five-day (c) Ensure that reliable medical certificates are regularly prepared before and after deportation. (9) While it notes that the decision of the Constitutional Court partially abrogates article 39/82 of the Act of 15 December 1980 on emergency remedies and the possibility of forced removal in the absence of any decision by the Aliens Litigation Council, the Committee remains concerned by the fact that the provisions of article 39/82 relating to the 24-hour time limit for the lodging of an emergency appeal are to remain in force until 30 June 2009 (art. 13). The Committee recommends that the State party promptly adopt measures aimed at giving suspensive effect not only to emergency remedies but also to appeals filed by any alien against whom an expulsion order has been issued and who claims that he or she faces the risk of being subjected to torture in the country of return. The Committee, recalling the observation made in the decision of the Constitutional Court that time limits must be reasonable, also recommends that the 24-hour time limit for the registering of an emergency appeal, which is not reasonable, be extended. Monitoring of deported persons (10) The Committee is concerned at information received from non-governmental sources with regard to the situation of certain deported individuals following their return to their country of origin. It notes with concern that the information provided by the State party regarding the monitoring and follow-up of those individuals and on guarantees of due process is insufficient, and that its compatibility with article 3 of the Convention cannot therefore be assessed. The Committee does, however, acknowledge that the State party did follow up certain cases through the intermediary of its diplomatic representatives abroad (art. 3). The Committee recommends that the State party improve the monitoring of deported persons with a view to ensuring that no one may be removed, deported or extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she might be subject to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 11