CAT/C/CAN/CO/7 37. The State party should: (a) Ensure, in law and in practice, that all victims of torture and illtreatment obtain redress, including an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation and the means for as full rehabilitation as possible; (b) Compile information on redress and on compensation measures, including means of rehabilitation, ordered by the courts or other State bodies and actually provided to victims of torture or ill-treatment. Adequate redress for the torture and ill-treatment of Canadians detained abroad 38. In the light of its previous concluding observations (CAT/C/CAN/CO/6, para. 16), the Committee notes the compensation and the Government’s formal apology of 7 March 2017 to Ahmad Abou-Elmaati, Abdullah Almalki and Muayyed Nureddin for any role that Canadian officials may have played in their detention and mistreatment in Egypt and the Syrian Arab Republic between 2001 and 2004. It regrets, however, the absence of prosecutions related to Canadian involvement in these alleged offences. The Committee also notes the Government’s statement of apology of 7 July 2017 to Omar Khadr, although it notes with concern that while a settlement was reached, details remain confidential for privacy reasons, including any information with respect to psychological rehabilitation or assistance provided. While noting the explanations provided by the delegation concerning the confidentiality of the agreements reached in each case, the Committee finds itself unable to properly evaluate the actions of the State in the light of article 14 of the Convention. Moreover, the Committee is concerned at reports that the State party is obstructing the efforts of Abousfian Abdelrazik – a Canadian citizen who alleges that he was unlawfully imprisoned and tortured in the Sudan between September 2003 and July 2004 and between October 2005 and July 2006 – to obtain redress for the alleged complicity of Canadian officials in his treatment, particularly the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. According to the information before the Committee, on 18 September 2018 Mr. Abdelrazik’s lawsuit regarding the role of the State party in his unlawful imprisonment and torture was indefinitely delayed after a judge agreed to the federal Government’s plea for postponement (arts. 2, 12–14 and 16). 39. The Committee draws the State party’s attention to paragraphs 5 and 16 of its general comment No. 3 (2012) on the implementation of article 14, in which it elaborates on the nature and scope of the obligations of States parties under article 14 of the Convention to provide full redress to victims of torture. In particular, satisfaction should include, by way of and in addition to the obligations of investigation and criminal prosecution under articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, the following remedies, inter alia: verification of the facts and full and public disclosure of the truth to the extent that such disclosure does not cause further harm or threaten the safety and interests of the victim, the victim’s relatives, witnesses, or persons who have intervened to assist the victim or prevent the occurrence of further violations; an official declaration or judicial decision restoring the dignity, the reputation and the rights of the victim and of persons closely connected with the victim; and judicial and administrative sanctions against persons liable for the violations. The State party should provide information on specific measures taken in the above-mentioned cases. Civil redress and State immunity 40. The Committee regrets that the State party has not taken any measures to review its legislation in order to ensure that all victims of torture are able to access remedy and obtain redress, wherever acts of torture have occurred and regardless of the nationality of the perpetrator or victim, as recommended by the Committee in its previous concluding observations (CAT/C/CAN/CO/6, para. 15). In this regard, the Committee regrets the State party’s reluctance to amend the State Immunity Act with a view to providing an exception to State immunity for acts of torture committed outside Canada by foreign States or their representatives. As pointed out during the dialogue with the delegation, in view of the provisions on forum of necessity and related jurisprudence in the jurisdictions of Québec (for de nécessité), British Columbia and Nova Scotia, the Committee considers that the 9