A/68/295 Committee general comment No. 18, para. 7), as well as labelling on grounds of psychological profile or criminal past. 29. Similarly, in line with general comment No. 2 of the Committee against Torture, the Rules apply irrespective of whether the detention facilities are run by State or private companies (paras. 15 and 17). Authorities should ensure that the Rules and the principles stipulated therein are observed in all institutions and establishments within their jurisdiction where persons are deprived of liberty. The Rules should ensure that, in cases where certain services are outsourced, the State remains responsible for the adequacy of those services. 30. Furthermore, the provisions in the Rules governing the transfer of detainees from one authority to another should be strengthened. The duties of the State should be extended to the following circumstances, among others: the transfer of prisoners from one establishment to another; judicial proceedings; and hospitals outside the confines of an institution of detention. Even when the administration of a facility is not in charge of ordering a transfer, it is nevertheless acting in an official capacity on account of its responsibility for carrying out the State’s obligation to prevent torture and ill-treatment, and bears responsibility for permitting or participating in the transfer of a person to the custody or control of an individual or institution known to have engaged in torture or ill-treatment, or for not implementing adequate safeguards, in contravention of the State’s obligation to take effective measures to prevent torture or other ill-treatment (Committee against Torture general comment No. 2, para. 19). 31. Thus, regardless of which authority is competent to authorize and/or execute transfers, the authority releasing the detainee, as guarantor of the right to life and humane treatment of the persons under its custody, must act with due diligence and objectivity in assessing potential risk factors and the feasibility of the transfer, and must inform the judge in charge, prior to carrying out the transfer, to give him or her the opportunity to overturn said transfer. The Rules should allow for available, suitable and effective judicial remedies to challenge transfers when it is believed that they infringe on the human rights of inmates. 1 32. The Special Rapporteur fully endorses the proposal by the Expert Group to include a new preamble that would include a list of the fundamental principles contained in already adopted treaties and guidelines regarding treatment in detention (see Rule 3 and E/CN.15/2012/CRP.2, sect. 4). Some proposed preambles (for example, that proposed in UNODC/CCPCJ/EG.6/2012/NGO/1), however, refer to instruments that set out standards that fall short of those recognized in subsequent instruments; these earlier instruments should not, therefore, be cited in the Rules. For instance, the standards set out in the Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and for the Improvement of Mental Health Care (1991), have, in various important respects, been superseded by the higher standards set out in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (see A/HRC/22/53, para. 58). 33. It is crucial to recognize explicitly the absolute prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in all circumstances. Such an explicit recognition should be included both in the preamble and, through a revision, in Rule 6, dealing with respect for inmates’ inherent dignity and value as human __________________ 1 13-42285 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Human Rights of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas (2011). Available from www.oas.org/en/iachr/pdl/docs/ pdf/PPL2011eng.pdf. 7/23