16 47. Chapter V. on the procedure for forced removals addresses many of the issues raised by the CPT in its 13th General Report, which is quoted extensively in the Comments on the Guidelines involved. Guideline 15 rightly highlights the importance of giving detained persons the possibility to organise their return. Further, the CPT welcomes the unambiguous statement in Guideline 19 (2) that restraint techniques and coercive measures likely to obstruct the airways partially or wholly, or forcing the returnee into positions where he/she risks asphyxia, “shall not be used”. However, the CPT is concerned by the wording of Guideline 19 (3), which leaves open the possibility for escort teams not to be offered specific training in the use of the authorised means of restraint (in apparent contradiction with Guideline 18 (2), which provides that escort staff should receive adequate training, including in the proper use of restraint techniques). In the Committee’s view, such training is essential, in order to reduce the risk of ill-treatment to a minimum. The CPT would also like to stress, in relation to Guideline 16 (3), that in the event of an abortive deportation operation, a medical examination of the person concerned should be obligatory. As the Comments on the Guideline makes clear, this is as much in the interests of escort staff as of those of the person concerned. 48. Finally, it goes without saying that the CPT greatly welcomes the clear reminder, given in Guideline 2 (1), of the well-established obligation not to send a person to a country where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would run a real risk of being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Committee stated in its 7th General Report that in view of the potential gravity of the interests at stake, a decision involving the removal of a person from a State’s territory should be appealable before another body of an independent nature prior to its implementation. Guideline 5 recalls that there must be an effective possibility of challenging a removal order before an independent body, and spells out that the remedy shall provide “rigorous scrutiny” of any claim that the removal would expose the person concerned to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. As for the question of suspensive effect, it is stipulated that the exercise of the remedy should have this effect when the person concerned has “an arguable claim” that he/she would be subjected to such treatment if returned. In the CPT’s view, whenever a claim is made of a risk of torture or other form of ill-treatment, one should always err on the side of caution and accord the remedy suspensive effect; in such cases, this is the only way of being absolutely sure that the remedy will be effective. CPT: 15TH GENERAL REPORT Revision of the European Prison Rules 49. Since they were first introduced in 1973, the European Prison Rules (EPR) have played an important role in the development of prison systems, guiding prison policy and practice in the member States of the Council of Europe as well as influencing the approach to prisons in countries beyond. First revised in 1987, the process of a further revision began in 2003, the task being given to the Council for Penological Cooperation (PC-CP). This second revision of the EPR has taken place against the backdrop of work carried out by the CPT, which has been organising visits to places of deprivation of liberty – including prisons – since 1990. The PC-CP’s terms of reference as approved by the Committee of Ministers stipulate that the work undertaken by the CPT should be taken into account and refer to the need to consult the Committee as and when appropriate. 50. The CPT welcomes the open approach adopted during the revision process. The Committee has been able to make written comments on the various texts as they have evolved, and representatives of the Committee have had direct discussions with the drafters. The CPT’s President was also invited to attend the Conference of Directors of Prison Administration and Probation Service in November 2004, at which a first draft of the new EPR was considered. The positive reception which has been accorded to the CPT’s views is greatly appreciated by the Committee. The revision process is now nearing completion and the CPT would like to take this opportunity to make some brief remarks, in the light of the most recent version of the draft revised Rules*. At the outset, it should be emphasised that there is a high degree of consonance between the revised EPR and the principles and recommendations contained in CPT visit reports as well as in the Committee’s General Reports. Further, the CPT appreciates the frequent references to its standards in the Draft Commentary on the revised Rules. * This text can be obtained from the Directorate General of Legal Affairs of the Council of Europe (e-mail: dgi.cdpc@coe.int).