CAT/C/NLD/CO/5-6 Non-refoulement 11. Noting the positive impacts of amending the asylum procedure in July 2010, introducing the eight-day accelerated procedure, and the information that almost 90 per cent of new asylum applications were processed or at least interviewed under the eight-day procedure, the Committee is nevertheless concerned that the pressure to decide claims speedily puts constraints on procedural safeguards and fair review of applications by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. In particular, the Committee is concerned that: (a) The accelerated procedure may prevent asylum seekers from fully presenting and substantiating their claims and therefore put the persons in need of international protection at heightened risk of rejection and possible return to a country where they may face persecution, torture or ill-treatment, in violation of the non-refoulement principle (art. 3); (b) Only 12 hours of legal aid are allocated during the asylum procedure, which may limit the quality of legal advice to asylum seekers with complex claims (art. 3); (c) The information forwarded by the asylum seeker after the initial decision has been taken by the authorities concerned is considered to have less value than the information provided before the initial decision was adopted and that the appeal procedures before the Council of State (the Administrative Jurisdiction Division) provide only for a marginal review of the facts which substantially limits the effectiveness of the appeal procedures (art. 3). Noting the intention of the State party to evaluate the accelerated asylum procedure in 2013, the Committee recommends that the State party consider the following revisions: (a) Allow sufficient time for asylum seekers, especially those in the accelerated procedures, to fully indicate the reasons for their application and obtain and present crucial evidence in order to guarantee fair and efficient asylum procedures in order to ensure that the legitimacy of applications for protection by refugees and other persons in need of international protection is duly recognized and refoulement is prevented; (b) Allow for adequate legal assistance to all asylum seekers including by providing for exceptions from the maximum number of hours of legal assistance during the asylum procedure to facilitate submission of complex claims; and (c) Allow asylum seekers to present new evidence which could not be made available at the time of the first interview on the merits and ensure that the appeal procedures before the Council of State provide for a full review of rejected applications. Medical examinations as part of asylum procedure 12. The Committee is also concerned that during medical examinations that form a part of asylum procedure, individuals are primarily assessed on their ability to be interviewed while disregarding their eventual needs of treatment and support due to ill-treatment, torture or trauma suffered. This practice of not using the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Istanbul Protocol) as a means for establishing a link between the asserted illtreatment in the asylum application and the findings of actual physical examination is not in conformity with the requirements set out in the Istanbul Protocol (arts. 3 and 10). The Committee recommends that the State party take measures: (a) To identify asylum seekers with specific needs as early as possible by ensuring that during the medical examination as part of asylum procedure the 4