CAT/C/ESP/CO/6 The Committee reminds the State party that it must ensure that no one is expelled, returned or extradited to another State when there are substantial grounds for believing that the person would run a personal and foreseeable risk of being subjected to torture. In addition, the State party should refrain from seeking or accepting diplomatic assurances as a safeguard against torture or ill treatment in such cases. The Committee points out that the torture reported by Ali Aarrass may constitute a violation of the provisions of the Convention, and calls for proper investigations. Non-refoulement 13. The Committee is seriously concerned at the practice of summary forced return — known as “hot expulsion” — from the autonomous cities of Ceuta and Melilla, carried out with no prior risk assessment and preventing access to the refugee status determination procedure. In that regard, it notes with concern that the first final provision of the Public Security Act, adopted in March 2015, amends the Aliens Act to put a veneer of legality on such summary expulsion, in the form of the new legal concept of “rejection at the border” (art. 3). The Committee urges the State party to revise its immigration and asylum legislation to give unconditional effect to the right of non-refoulement, in accordance with article 3 of the Convention, and to take all necessary measures to fully observe that right in all circumstances. It should also ensure proper evaluation of each individual case, including the identification of possible victims of torture, and guarantee to all persons in need of international protection access to asylum procedures, including refugee status determination. Obligation to extradite or prosecute (aut dedere aut judicare) 14. The Committee notes with concern that extradition requests from the Argentine Government in respect of persons, including several former ministers, suspected of crimes of torture under the Franco regime have been denied by the State party on the grounds that the acts of which they are accused do not constitute crimes against humanity and are therefore subject to the statute of limitations. In this regard, the Committee is concerned that this situation may give rise to impunity in those cases where the State party does not investigate the alleged crimes, as well as constituting a violation of the Convention (arts. 5 and 7). The Committee reminds the State party that, in order to avoid impunity, it must apply the principle of aut dedere aut judicare when the alleged perpetrator of acts of torture is in its territory, in accordance with article 5, paragraph 2, of the Convention. The Committee also reiterates that the investigation and prosecution of acts of torture should not be constrained by the application of the statute of limitations. Amnesty 15. The Committee notes with grave concern that the 1977 Amnesty Act remains in force. The Committee is also concerned that the Supreme Court has found that criminal investigation into serious human rights violations committed during the Civil War and the Franco regime (1936–1975) is not warranted, in part because such offences are covered by the statute of limitations or the alleged perpetrators are deceased or are covered by the 1977 Amnesty Act (arts. 12, 13 and 14). The Committee urges the State party to take all necessary legislative and other measures to ensure that crimes of torture, including enforced disappearance, are not subject to amnesty or a term of limitation, and that this rule is scrupulously observed in practice. The State party should also ensure that victims of torture or ill treatment 4 GE.15-08414