CAT/C/ISR/CO/4 page 7 The principle of non-refoulement should be incorporated into the domestic legislation of the State party, so that the asylum procedure includes a thorough examination of the merits of each individual case under article 3 of the Convention. An adequate mechanism for the review of the decision to remove a person should also be in place. 23. The Committee notes with concern that, under article 1 of the draft amendment to the 1954 Infiltration to Israel Law (Jurisdiction and Felonies) Act, which was passed on 19 May 2008 in first reading by the Knesset, any person having entered Israel illegally is automatically presumed to constitute a risk to Israel’s security and falls within the category of “infiltrator” and can therefore be subjected to this law. The Committee is concerned that article 11 of this draft law allows Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) officers to order the return of an “infiltrator” to the State or area of origin within 72 hours, without any exceptions, procedures or safeguards. The Committee considers that this procedure, void of any provision taking into account the principle of non-refoulement, is not in line with the State party’s obligations under article 3 of the Convention. The Israeli Government reported 6,900 “infiltrators” during 2008. The Committee notes that the draft amendment to the Infiltration to Israel Law, if adopted, would violate article 3 of the Convention. The Committee strongly recommends that this draft law be brought in line with the Convention and that, at a minimum, a provision be added to ensure an examination into the existence of substantive grounds for the existence of a risk of torture. Proper training of officials dealing with immigrants should be ensured, as well as monitoring and review of those official’s decisions to ensure against violations of article 3. 24. The Committee notes with concern that, on the basis of the “Coordinated Immediate Return Procedure”, established by Israeli Defense Force order 1/3,000, IDF soldiers at the border – whom the State party has not asserted have been trained in legal obligations under the Convention – are authorized to execute summary deportations without any procedural safeguards to prevent refoulement under article 3 of the Convention. The Committee notes that such safeguards are necessary for each and every case whether or not there is a formal readmission agreement or diplomatic assurances between the State party and the receiving State. Prohibition of unlawful or coerced evidence 25. While welcoming the Supreme Court decision Prv. Yisascharov v the Head Military Prosecutor et al, C.A. 5121/98, which laid down the doctrine of exclusion of unlawfully obtained evidence, the Committee notes that the question of determining whether or not to admit such evidence is left to the discretion of the judge. The State party should prohibit by law that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture cannot be invoked as evidence in any proceedings against the victim, in line with article 15 of the Convention. Detention facility 1391 26. Notwithstanding the information from the State party that ISA secret detention and interrogation facility known as “Facility 1391” has not been used since 2006 to detain or interrogate security suspects, the Committee notes with concern that several petitions filed to the