A/60/316 concern was expressed at “the alleged roles of the State party’s authorities in the expulsion of Canadian national Mr. Maher Arar, expelled from the United States to the Syrian Arab Republic where torture was reported to be practised.”28 The Committee also recommended that Canada “... unconditionally undertake to respect the absolute nature of article 3 in all circumstances and fully to incorporate the provision of article 3 into the State party’s domestic law ... Given the absolute nature of the prohibition against refoulement contained in article 3 of the Convention, the State party should provide the Committee with details on how many cases of extradition or removal subject to receipt of ‘diplomatic assurances’ or guarantees have occurred since 11 September 2001, what the State party’s minimum requirements are for such assurances or guarantees, what measures of subsequent monitoring it has undertaken in such cases and the legal enforceability of the assurances or guarantees given.”29 34. On 17 May 2005, in Mafhoud Brada v. France, the Committee against Torture, “... acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, considers that the deportation of the complainant to Algeria constituted a breach of articles 3 and 22 of the Convention.”30 35. In March 2004, the Human Rights Committee adopted general comment No. 31 on article 2 of the Covenant in which it states that “the article 2 obligation requiring that States Parties respect and ensure the Covenant rights for all persons in their territory and all persons under their control entails an obligation not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory, where there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, either in the country to which removal is to be effected or in any country to which the person may subsequently be removed” (para. 12). 36. In Ahani v. Canada, where the complainant was deported from Canada on the grounds of national security, the Human Rights Committee stated that “... the failure of the State party to provide him ... with the procedural protections afforded to the plaintiff in Suresh on the basis that he had not made out a risk of harm did not satisfy the obligation in article 13 to allow the author to submit reasons against his removal in the light of the administrative authorities’ case against him and to have such complete submissions reviewed by a competent authority, entailing a possibility to comment on the material presented to that authority. The Committee thus finds a violation of article 13 of the Covenant, in conjunction with article 7.”31 37. On 22 June 2005, the United Nations High Commissioners for Refugees and Human Rights released a press statement in which they both urged the Government of Kyrgyzstan to refrain from any action aimed at ensuring the forcible return of Uzbek asylum-seekers to their country as there were well-founded reasons to believe that asylum-seekers in Kyrgyzstan may face an imminent risk of grave human rights violations, including torture and extrajudicial and summary executions, if returned to Uzbekistan. The Secretary-General, on the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, also reminded Governments that the prohibition of torture is non-negotiable, and that torture cannot be justified by any circumstances whatsoever. This includes an absolute ban, in accordance with 10