CAT/C/SLE/CO/1 Non-refoulement 20. While welcoming the fact that the Refugees Protection Act 2007 bars the “refoulement” of refugees and their families if there are substantial grounds for believing that they would be in danger of being subjected to torture, the Committee notes with concern that the Extradition Act 1974 does not explicitly recognize this principle. Although the decision to extradite is subject to judicial review, there is no legal obligation to assess the situation of the applicant with regard to the risk of torture in the country of destination. The Committee is also concerned at the lack of sufficient financial support provided to the three refugee bodies set out under the Refugees Protection Act, which inhibits them from performing their functions effectively (art. 3). The State party should abide by its obligations under the Convention, repeated in the commitment made during the dialogue with the Committee, and amend the Extradition Act to ensure that it conforms to the non-refoulement obligation under article 3 of the Convention. The State party should also take the necessary steps to guarantee that the principle of non-refoulement is properly applied by the High Court and the Supreme Court when they decide on extradition cases. The State party should further allocate sufficient funding to its national refugees structures to ensure their sustainability, as recommended previously by the Human Rights Committee. Jurisdiction over acts of torture 21. The Committee is concerned at the lack of clarity concerning the possibility of establishing extraterritorial jurisdiction over the crime of torture when the alleged victim is a national of Sierra Leone, or the alleged foreign offender is present under its jurisdiction. The Committee also notes the lack of clarity regarding the existence of the necessary legislative measures establishing the State party’s obligation to extradite or prosecute for acts of torture (aut dedere, aut judicare). The Committee further notes with concern that, according to section 42, paragraph 1, of the Criminal Procedure Acts, 1965, national courts may establish jurisdiction over crimes committed by nationals of Sierra Leone abroad only when these crimes were committed by a public official acting “in the course of his duties” (arts. 5, 6 and 7). The State party should ensure that the new Criminal Procedure Act, 2014 establishes extra-territorial jurisdiction over acts of torture when the alleged victim is a national of Sierra Leone or the alleged offender is present in Sierra Leone, either to extradite the alleged perpetrator to a State with jurisdiction over the offence or to an international criminal tribunal, according to its international obligations, or to prosecute him or her, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. The State party should also ensure that this Act establishes jurisdiction over acts of torture committed by nationals of Sierra Leone abroad irrespective of whether the alleged perpetrators were persons acting in an official capacity or public officials acting outside their official duties. Extradition and mutual assistance 22. The Committee notes that the Extradition Act makes extradition contingent on the existence of an extradition treaty with a listed number of countries. However the Committee is concerned that the crimes enumerated in article 4 of the Convention are not explicitly included in the Extradition Act as extraditable offences. Moreover, the State party has not clarified whether it had invoked the Convention as a legal basis for extradition with regard to these crimes when it received a request for extradition from another State party with which it has no extradition treaty. The Committee is also concerned at the fact that there are no provisions concerning mutual judicial assistance that could apply in the case of the crimes enumerated in article 4 of the Convention (arts. 8 and 9). 8