(a) While HREOC is empowered to investigate complaints related to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment arising from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention against Torture is not included in HREOC’s complaint handling jurisdiction; (b) HREOC can only make recommendations of an advisory nature; (c) HREOC’s complaint handling powers do not extend to investigating the acts and practices of intelligence agencies. The State party should consider strengthening and extending the mandate of the HREOC, inter alia, to the handling of complaints for violation of the Convention against Torture, including for acts committed by intelligence agencies officers. Furthermore, the Committee urges the State party to give adequate follow-up to the recommendations of HREOC. Article 3 (15) The Committee is concerned that the prohibition of non-refoulement is not enshrined in the State party’s legislation as an express and non-derogable provision, which may also result in practices contrary to the Convention. The Committee also notes with concern that some flaws related to the non-refoulement obligations under the Convention may depend on the exclusive use of the Minister’s discretionary powers thereto. In this respect, the Committee welcomes the information that the same Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has indicated that the high degree of discretionary authority available to him under existing legislation should be reconsidered. The State party should explicitly incorporate into domestic legislation, both at Federal and States/Territories levels the prohibition whereby no State party shall expel, return or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he/she would be in danger of being subjected to torture (non-refoulement), and implement it in practice. The State party should also implement the Committee’s previous recommendations formulated during the consideration of the State party’s second periodic report to adopt a system of complementary protection ensuring that the State party no longer solely relies on the Minister’s discretionary powers to meet its non-refoulement obligations under the Convention. (16) The Committee reminds States parties that under no circumstances can they resort to diplomatic assurances as a safeguard against torture or ill-treatment where there are substantial grounds for believing that a person would be in danger of being subjected to torture or ill-treatment upon return. The State party, if resorting to diplomatic assurances in any other situation than those that must be excluded by article 3 of the Convention, should provide the Committee with information in its next report on how many cases of extradition or removal subject to receipt of diplomatic assurances or guarantees have occurred since 11 September 2001; the State party’s minimum requirements for such assurances or guarantees; the measures of subsequent monitoring it has undertaken in such cases as well as the legal enforceability of the assurances or guarantees given. (17) The Committee notes that section 198 (6) of the Migration Act provides that a person in immigration detention must be removed from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable. In this respect, while noting that the current policy of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) is that a protection visa applicant in immigration detention will not be removed from Australia pending the outcome of the judicial review or the Ministerial Intervention request in relation to the application, the Committee is concerned that appeals filed against a decision not to grant asylum or to deny or cancel a visa do not seem to have automatic suspensive effect. The State party should ensure that effective remedies are available to challenge the decision not to grant asylum or to deny or cancel a visa. Such remedies should have the effect of suspending the execution of the above decision, i.e. the expulsion or removal. 49