tried to make use of diplomatic assurances in any case other than the cases concerning Mr. Agiza and Mr. Alzery. The Committee takes note of the extensive information presented by the State party on measures taken to implement the Committee’s decision in Agiza v. Sweden, including the issuance of visas to family members and continued visits to the prison. The Committee also notes that the requests for residence permit and compensation are currently awaiting resolution. However, the Committee regrets the lack of full implementation of the key elements in this decision, in particular an in-depth investigation and prosecution of those responsible, as appropriate. It further regrets the lack of full implementation of the Views of the Human Rights Committee in Alzery v. Sweden, including the recommended remedies (arts. 3 and 14). The State party should take all necessary measures to implement the decision of this Committee and the Views of the Human Rights Committee concerning Mr. Agiza and Mr. Alzery and provide them with fair and adequate compensation. Furthermore, the State party should undertake an in-depth investigation into the reasons for their expulsion and prosecute those responsible, as appropriate. Finally, the State party should take effective measures to ensure that it complies fully with its obligations under article 3 of the Convention in order to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future. (14) The Committee notes that the State party is in the process of negotiating a Memorandum of Understanding with the Government of Afghanistan in connection with its participation in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) operation (art. 3). It is the Committee’s constant view, as reiterated in its general comment on article 2 of the Convention (CAT/C/GC/2) that article 3 of the Convention and its obligation of non-refoulement apply to a State party’s military forces, wherever situated, where they exercise effective control, de jure or de facto, over an individual. With regard to the possible transfer of detainees within a State party’s effective custody to the custody of any other State, the State party should ensure that it complies fully with article 3 of the Convention in all circumstances. Training (15) The Committee notes with appreciation the detailed information provided by the State party on training programmes for, inter alia, the police forces, the Prosecution Authority and the Prison and Probation Administration, including prison staff. The Committee also welcomes the information provided on the special police tactics, including employment of non-violent means and crowd control. However, the Committee regrets the limited information provided on monitoring and evaluation of such training programmes and the lack of available information on the impact of the training conducted for law enforcement officials and prison staff, and how effective the training programmes have been in reducing incidents of torture and ill-treatment (art. 10). The State party should further develop educational programmes to ensure that all law enforcement officials and prison staff are fully aware of the provisions of the Convention, that breaches will not be tolerated and will be investigated, and that offenders will be prosecuted. All relevant personnel, including Swedish embassy staff, should receive specific training on torture and ill-treatment and the Committee recommends that the Istanbul Protocol (Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment) become an integral part of such training. Furthermore, the State party should develop and implement a methodology to assess the effectiveness and impact of such training/educational programmes on the reduction of cases of torture, violence and ill-treatment. Imposition of restrictions on remand prisoners (16) The Committee expresses its concern at information that between 40 to 50 per cent of remand prisoners are subjected to restrictions and that remand prisoners are currently unable to effectively challenge and appeal decisions to impose or maintain specific restrictions. The Committee also regrets the lack of official statistics on the use of such restrictions. However, the Committee notes that a proposal of the special investigator appointed by the Government, which includes regulatory changes aimed at securing a uniform and legally secure use of restrictions, is currently under consideration in the Ministry of Justice (arts. 2, 11 and 16). 75