region. In order for the OSCE to properly fulfil its commitment to upholding human rights in the fight against terrorism, it should reinforce relevant human dimension commitments to ensure that commitments made in a national context are also respected in an international context. Two areas in particular should be addressed in new OSCE commitments. 90. The principle of non-refoulement, that a person should not be transferred to a place where they are at risk of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or of other serious human rights abuses, is implicit in international human rights standards. A lack of respect for the principle of non-refoulement in the extradition and deportation of terrorist suspects was highlighted at the SHDM on human rights and the fight against terrorism in July 2005 as a serious threat to the prohibition on torture in the OSCE region. An explicit commitment not to return or transfer a person to a place where they are at risk of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or of other serious human rights abuses would significantly strengthen OSCE commitments on the prohibition of torture and clarify the international standards that apply. 91. Human rights commitments can only be real and effective if they are protected by procedural safeguards and if effective remedies are available in cases of alleged abuse of human rights. An additional OSCE commitment specifying that commitments relating to effective remedies and arbitrary detention apply equally to international co-operation in the fight against terrorism would help to clarify that human dimension commitments are not ignored in the international fight against terrorism. D. Prevention of torture 92. The OSCE’s unequivocal commitment to prohibit torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment has been reaffirmed repeatedly.56 The participating States have also made it clear that “no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture”.57 At the same time, recognition that torture still exists and remains a serious concern in the OSCE area58 suggests that more needs to be done by the participating States to eradicate this abhorrent practice. 93. Clearly, political condemnation of torture should go hand in hand with practical measures that translate this commitment into reality. Chief among them are institutionalized procedures that would apply to all law enforcement bodies and other state agents authorized to detain and interrogate people. The 1991 Moscow Document outlined some such measures.59 Additional safeguards should, inter alia, include access to detainees by defence counsel and medical personnel; creation of permanent national monitoring mechanisms with unimpeded access to all places of detention, regardless of their institutional jurisdiction; equipping all interrogation rooms with video surveillance systems and/or video recording of all interrogations; and creation of specialized units for independent investigation of allegations of torture and other ill-treatment in custody. 56  See, for example, the 1989 Vienna Document (para. 23.4), the 1990 Paris Charter and the 1999 Istanbul Charter (para. 21). 57  1990 Copenhagen Document, para. 16.3. 58  The Final Report of the SHDM on the Prevention of Torture (6-7 November 2003) is available on the ODIHR’s website. 59  Paras. 23.1.vii-x. Common Responsibility: Commitments and Implementation 31