A/67/44 (a) Canadian law, including subsection 115(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, continues to provide legislative exceptions to the principle of nonrefoulement; (b) The State party continues to engage in deportation, extradition or other removals, in practice, often using security certificates under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and occasionally resorting to diplomatic assurances, which could result in violations of the principle of non-refoulement; and (c) Insufficient information is provided in relation to investigations into all allegations of violation of article 3 of the Convention, remedies provided to victims and measures taken to guarantee effective post-return monitoring arrangements. Recalling its previous recommendation (CAT/C/CR/34/CAN, paras. 5 (a) and (b)), the Committee urges the State party to amend relevant laws, including the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, with a view to unconditionally respecting the absolute principle of non-refoulement in accordance with article 3 of the Convention, and take all necessary measures to fully implement it in practice in all circumstances. Furthermore, the State party should refrain from the use of diplomatic assurances as a means of returning a person to another country where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. (10) The Committee regrets the State party’s failure to comply in every instance with the Committee’s decisions under article 22 of the Convention and requests for interim measures of protection, particularly in cases involving deportation and extradition (with reference to communications Nos. 258/2004, Dadar v. Canada, and 297/2006, Sogi v. Canada), might undermine its commitment to the Convention. The Committee recalls that the State party, by ratifying the Convention and voluntarily accepting the Committee’s competence under article 22, undertook to cooperate with the Committee in good faith in applying and giving full effect to the procedure of individual complaints established thereunder. Consequently, the Committee considers that, by deporting complainants despite the Committee’s decisions or requests for interim measures, the State party has committed a breach of its obligations under articles 3 and 22 of the Convention (arts. 3 and 22). The State party should fully cooperate with the Committee, in particular by respecting in every instance its decisions and requests for interim measures. The Committee recommends the State party review its policy in this respect, by considering requests for interim measures in good faith and in accordance with its obligations under articles 3 and 22 of the Convention. (11) While noting the State party’s statement that the Canadian Forces assessed the risk of torture or ill-treatment before transferring a detainee into Afghan custody (CAT/C/CAN/Q/6/Add.1, para. 155), the Committee is concerned about several reports that some prisoners transferred by Canadian Forces in Afghanistan into the custody of other countries have experienced torture and ill-treatment (art. 3). The State party should adopt a policy for future military operations that clearly prohibits the prisoner transfers to another country when there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture and recognizes that diplomatic assurances and monitoring arrangements will not be relied upon to justify transfers when such substantial risk of torture exists. Security certificates under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (12) While taking note of the system of special advocates introduced by the amended Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in response to concerns raised by different actors and the judgement by the Supreme Court in the case of Charkaoui v. Canada, the Committee remains concerned that (arts. 2, 3, 15 and 16): GE.12-44492 117