A/67/44 (a) Special advocates have very limited ability to conduct cross-examinations or to seek evidence independently; (b) Individuals subject to security certificates have access to a summary of confidential materials concerning them and cannot directly discuss full content with the special advocates. Accordingly, the advocates cannot properly know the case against them or make full answer or defence in violation of the fundamental principles of justice and due process; (c) The length of this detention without charge is indeterminate and some individuals are detained for prolonged periods; and (d) Information obtained by torture has been reportedly used to form the basis of security certificates, as evidenced by the case of Hassan Almrei. The Committee recommends that the State party reconsider its policy of using administrative detention and immigration legislation to detain and remove noncitizens on the ground of national security, inter alia, by extensively reviewing the use of the security certificates and ensuring the prohibition of the use of information obtained by torture, in line with relevant domestic and international law. In that regard, the State party should implement the outstanding recommendations made by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention following its mission to Canada in 2005, in particular that detention of terrorism suspects be imposed in the framework of criminal procedure and in accordance with the corresponding safeguards enshrined in the relevant international law (E/CN.4/2006/7/Add.2, para. 92). Immigration detention (13) While noting the State party’s need for a legal reform to combat human smuggling, the Committee is deeply concerned about Bill C-31 (the Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act), given that, with its excessive Ministerial discretion, this Act would (arts. 2, 3, 11 and 16): (a) Introduce mandatory detention for individuals who enter irregularly the State party’s territory; and (b) Exclude “irregular arrivals” and individuals who are nationals of designated “safe” countries from having an appeal hearing of a rejected refugee claim. This increases the risk that those individuals will be subject to refoulement. The Committee recommends the State party to modify Bill C-31, in particular its provisions regulating mandatory detention and denial of appeal rights, given the potential violation of rights protected by the Convention. Furthermore, the State party should ensure that: (a) Detention is used as a measure of last resort, a reasonable time limit for detention is set, and non-custodial measures and alternatives to detention are made available to persons in immigration detention; and (b) All refugee claimants are provided with access to a full appeal hearing before the Refugee Appeal Division. Universal jurisdiction (14) The Committee notes with interest that any person present in the State party’s territory who is suspected of having committed acts of torture may be prosecuted and tried in the State party under the Criminal Code and the Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act. However, the very low number of prosecutions for war crimes and crimes against humanity, including torture offences, under the aforementioned laws raises issues with respect to the State party’s policy in exercising universal jurisdiction. The Committee 118 GE.12-44492