CAT/C/LIE/CO/3 Non-refoulement, rights of refuges and asylum-seekers 14. The Committee notes the significant increase in the number of asylum applications in the State party during recent years, from an annual average of 66 applications (2004– 2008) to 294 applicants in 2009. The Committee is particularly concerned about information received that asylum-seekers may not always have an opportunity to have their claim examined in substance. In this respect, the Committee notes with particular concern that the majority of asylum applications rejected, or otherwise closed, in 2009 concern two States where the risk of torture or other forms of ill-treatment can be considered substantial. The Committee is also concerned at reports that Government officials exert pressure on asylum-seekers to leave voluntarily the State party, including by offering monetary rewards (art. 3). 15. Noting that “preventive expulsion” to a “safe third country” is contingent, inter alia, on that State’s treaty obligation to consider the asylum request and the principle of nonrefoulement, the Committee is concerned at reports that not all persons that have applied for asylum in Liechtenstein have had the opportunity to apply for asylum in the third State concerned (usually Switzerland and Austria), thus leaving such persons without sufficient safeguards against refoulement. In this respect, the Committee notes with concern the very short time period (24 hours) within which asylum-seekers “under preventive expulsion” may submit a request for restoration of the suspensive effect to competent authorities (art. 3). In order to fulfil its obligations under article 3 of the Convention, the Committee recommends that the State party: (a) Ensure a substantive assessment and review on the merits of all asylum applications, including those submitted in 2009; (b) Increase the time limit within which asylum-seekers under “preventive expulsion” may apply for restoration of the suspensive effect of the order and also guarantees their right to a proper hearing before the Administrative Court in cases of appeals on rejected requests for suspensive effect so as to ensure that those who are returned to “safe third countries” pursuant to “preventive expulsion” are guaranteed access to the asylum procedure in these States; (c) Investigate allegations of payments by Government officials to asylumseekers to persuade them to leave the State party in order to avoid having to undertake an in-depth assessment of the respective asylum application; (d) Establish an effective data collection system which identifies: (i) the grounds for asylum requests, including requests that were based on the applicant’s fear of being subjected to torture or other forms of ill-treatment, and the number of approved requests in those cases; (ii) the number and outcome of appeals of rejected requests; and (iii) the number of approved asylum and long-term resident requests that were granted on the basis of the Convention. 16. While noting information from the State party that asylum-seekers are detained while undergoing deportation proceedings if they absconded in another country during pending proceedings and/or if they claim a false identity, the Committee is concerned at information that asylum-seekers have been held in detention solely on the basis of their illegal entry into the State party. While appreciating information that asylum-seekers held in administrative detention are offered legal counsel by the State party free of charge, the Committee is concerned at information received that such persons have had difficulties in contacting a lawyer and receiving legal aid (arts. 3, 11 and 16). The State party should ensure that detention of asylum-seekers is only used as a last resort for as short a time as possible in accordance with article 31 of the 1951 5