CAT/C/USA/CO/3-5 Transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay and reliance on diplomatic assurances 16. The Committee notes the explanations provided by the delegation concerning the processes involved in transferring the remaining detainees from the Guantanamo Bay detention facilities and lifting the moratorium on detainee transfer to Yemen. However, it expresses concern that most of the 79 detainees who are currently designated for transfer had already been cleared for transfer five years ago by the Review Task Force. While noting the information provided by the State party on the practice of obtaining diplomatic assurances against torture, the Committee remains disturbed by reports from nongovernmental sources which indicate that some former Guantanamo Bay detainees have experienced abuse during post-release treatment (art. 3). The Committee calls upon the State party to ensure that no individual, including persons suspected of terrorism, who is expelled, returned, extradited or deported, is exposed to the danger of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. It urges the State party to refrain from seeking and relying on diplomatic assurances “where there are substantial grounds for believing that [a person] would be in danger of being subjected to torture” (art. 3). The principle of non-refoulement should always have precedence over any other protection measure. Interrogation techniques 17. The Committee appreciates the initiatives of the State party to eliminate interrogation methods which constitute torture or ill-treatment. Nevertheless, the Committee is concerned about certain aspects of Appendix M of Army Field Manual No. 222.3, Human Intelligence Collector Operations, of 6 September 2006, in particular the description of some authorized methods of interrogation, such as the interrogation techniques of “physical separation” and “field expedient separation”. While noting the information provided by the delegation that such practices are consistent with the State party’s obligations under the Convention, the Committee remains concerned over the possibilities for abuse that such techniques may entail (arts. 1, 2, 11 and 16). The State party should ensure that interrogation methods contrary to the provisions of the Convention are not used under any circumstances. The Committee urges the State party to review Appendix M of Army Field Manual No. 2-22.3 in the light of its obligations under the Convention. In particular, the State party should abolish the provision regarding the “physical separation technique” which states that “use of separation must not preclude the detainee getting four hours of continued sleep every 24 hours”. Such provision, applicable over an initial period of 30 days, which may be extended upon due approval, amounts to sleep deprivation — a form of ill-treatment —, and is unrelated to the aim of the “physical separation technique”, which is preventing communication among detainees. The State party should ensure the needs of detainees in terms of sleep time and sleeping accommodation provided for prisoners, are in conformity the requirements of rule 10 of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. Equally, the State party should abolish sensory deprivation under the “field expedient separation technique”, which is aimed at prolonging the shock of capture, by using goggles or blindfolds and earmuffs on detainees in order to generate the perception of separation. Based on recent scientific findings, sensory deprivation for long durations 8