(2) Forms of Reparation Restitution 51. Restitution is designed to re-establish the victim’s situation prior to the violation.81 For violations of Article 3, restitution will typically require return to the expelling country. Where a State Party violates Article 3 it must take all possible steps to enable the victim(s) to return to its jurisdiction. 82 Positive actions to enable the return of the victim may include: the provision of travel expenses;83 free legal assistance;84 provision of travel documents, for example a humanitarian visa;85 and review of any previous request for asylum.86 52. If the victim is in detention or is otherwise made inaccessible in the receiving State, effectuating a return may only be possible once he or she has been released or is again accessible. In such cases the State party should monitor the welfare and treatment of the victim in the receiving State. 53. The draft General Comment stipulates that States parties should provide financial and legal assistance to persons who have been deported in violation of Article 3. However, additional measures are required while the victim remains in the receiving State.87 The sending State should also determine the individual’s “current whereabouts and state of well-being”88 and establish “an effective follow-up mechanism to ensure that the complainant is not subjected to torture or ill-treatment,”89 such as “regular visits and effective monitoring to ensure that he is not subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention.”90 The draft refers to requests to international experts and others; however it should be made clear that the obligation is on the violating State to put adequate measures in place. Requests to third parties do not absolve a violating State of its obligations. Compensation 81 CAT, General Comment No. 3, UN Doc. CAT /C/GC/3, 19 November 2012, para. 8. CAT, Abdussamatov v. Kazakhstan, UN Doc. CAT/C/48/444/2010, 11 July 2012, para. 15; See also, CAT, Concluding Observations: Kazakhstan, UN Doc. CAT/C/KAZ/CO/3, 12 Dec. 2014, para. 16(g); HRC, AH v. Denmark, UN Doc. CCPR/C/114/D/2370/2014, 7 September 2015, para. 10 and follow up at HRC, 118th Session (17 Oct 2016-04 Nov 2016); CAT, X v. Kazakhstan, UN Doc. CAT/C/55/D/554/2013, 9 October 2015, para. 14. 83 See e.g., ECtHR, X v. Switzerland, App. no. 16744/14, 26 Jan. 2017. 84 Ibid. 85 Ibid. 86 See e.g., CAT, Concluding Observations: Sweden, UN Doc. CAT/C/SWE/CO/6-7, 12 Dec. 2014, para. 11; HRC, AH v. Denmark, UN Doc. CCPR/C/114/D/2370/2014, 7 September 2015, para. 10 and follow up at HRC, 118th Session (17 Oct 2016-04 Nov 2016); ECtHR, X v. Switzerland, App. no. 16744/14, 26 January 2017. 87 See e.g., ECtHR, Hirsi Jamaa v. Italy, App. no. 27765/09, 23 February 2012, para. 211. 88 CAT, Mafhoud Brada v. France, UN Doc. CAT/C/34/D/195/2002, 24 May 2005, para. 15; See also, CAT, Tebourski v. France, UN Doc. CAT/C/38/D/300/2006, 11 May 2007, para. 10; CAT, Bachan Singh Sogi v. Canada, UN Doc. CAT/C/39/D/297/2006, 29 November 2007, para. 12; CAT, Boily v. Canada, UN Doc. CAT/C/47/D/327/2007, 13 January 2012, para. 16. 89 CAT, Alexey Kalinichenko v. Morocco, UN Doc. CAT/C/47/D/428/2010, 18 January 2012, para. 17. 90 CAT, Tursonov v. Kazakhstan, UN Doc. CAT/C/54/D/538/2013, 3 July 2015, para. 11. See also, CAT, X v. Kazakhstan, UN Doc. CAT/C/55/D/554/2013, 9 October 2015, para. 14; HRC, Valetov v. Kazakhstan, UN Doc. CCPR/C/110/D/2104/2011, 29 April 2014, para. 16. 82 25 AI Index: IOR 40/6040/2017