CAT/C/CHE/CO/7 closed. The Committee also notes with concern that, where convictions are handed down for domestic violence, the penalties incurred are light (art. 2). The Committee recommends that the State party: (a) Amend its legislation to ensure that, in cases that may give rise to discretionary suspension under article 55 (a) of the Criminal Code, the victim is consulted and gives explicit, free and informed consent before the Public Prosecutor’s Office can suspend proceedings; (b) Ensure that all other cases of violence against women are automatically subject to effective and impartial proceedings and that perpetrators are prosecuted and punished in accordance with the serious nature of their acts; (c) Continue to sensitize and train the judiciary and law enforcement officials on all kinds of violence against women and on ex officio prosecution of cases; (d) Continue its campaigns to raise public awareness, particularly among young people, in order to combat domestic violence and gender stereotyping. 12. While welcoming the amendment in July 2013 of article 50 of the Federal Foreign Nationals Act, the Committee is nevertheless concerned at information received to the effect that the threshold “level of violence” suffered and the evidentiary burden remain too high, which makes it impossible for foreigners who are victims of domestic violence to leave a violent spouse without losing their residence permit (arts. 2, 13, 14 and 16). The Committee urges the State party to extend protection under article 50 of the Federal Foreign Nationals Act to foreigners who have been recognized as victims of domestic violence within the meaning of the Federal Act on Assistance to Crime Victims, without setting the threshold level of violence too high to allow protection to be granted. Non-refoulement 13. The Committee notes the information provided by the State party indicating that an assessment of the risk of violation of the principle of non -refoulement is made in each case. However, the Committee is concerned at reports that the assessment does not take proper account of information concerning the situation in the country of origin. In this regard, the Committee notes with concern the allegations that two Tamils who were forcibly returned to Sri Lanka were subjected to torture, and notes the State party’s undertaking to bring them back to Switzerland and to discontinue returns to Sri Lanka. Lastly, the Committee is concerned at reports to the effect that extradition is sometimes carried out only on the basis of diplomatic assurances provided by the country of origin and that, according to information received, those assurances do not appear to have been honoured in some cases (art. 3). The State party should under no circumstances expel, return or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. The Committee recalls that it has adopted the position that under no circumstances should a State party regard diplomatic assurances as being a safeguard against torture or illtreatment when there are substantial grounds for believing that a person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his or her return. The State party should thoroughly consider the merits of each individual case, including the overall situation with regard to torture in the country of return. It should put in place effective post-return monitoring arrangements for use in the event of refoulement and ensure that returned persons receive protection, re-entry and 4/9 GE.15-15100