(insertion of a new paragraph, paragraph 12bis, using text that is currently in the last sentence of paragraph 12) “Furthermore, he or she should never be deported involuntarily transferred to another State where he/she would may subsequently face onward involuntary transfer to a third State where in which he/she would be at real risk of subjected to torture (known as ‘chain’ or ‘indirect’ refoulement). [Footnote: General Comment No. 1, paragraph 2; Avedes Hamayak Korban v. Sweden, CAT/C/21/D/1997, 16 November 1998, paragraph 7; and Z.T. v. Australia, CAT/C/31/D/153/2000, 11 November 2003, paragraph. 6.4; and CAT/C/GRC/CO/5-6, paragraph 19]” vii) Paragraph 13 21. We recommend inserting the following text at the end of paragraph 13, which would refer to the changes that we have proposed below in relation to paragraph 18(e): “All involuntary transfer decisions must be subject to appeal to a judicial body as outlined in paragraph 18(e).” Recommended insertion of a new paragraph, paragraph 13bis The resort to immigration detention as tool to deter irregular migration has become increasingly widespread and institutionalized over the past fifteen years. In this context, the Committee has held that States parties should ensure that: “detention is used only as a last resort, in accordance with the requirements of international law, and not for administrative convenience”,24 and has recommended the repeal of provisions establishing mandatory detention of persons entering their territory irregularly.25 The Committee has also stated that persons in need of international protection, including “vulnerable people, in particular children, torture survivors, victims of trafficking, and persons with serious mental disability should not be detained” while their asylum, deportation or extradition cases are being examined.26 According to the UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, children’s deprivation of liberty solely based on their or their parents’ migration status is never in the best interests of the child and may constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.27 The Committee on the Rights of the Child has held that immigration detention – even for relatively limited duration or in contexts that are relatively “child friendly” – is never appropriate for children. The CRC Committee and a number of international and regional experts have therefore called upon States to “expeditiously and completely cease” the immigration detention of children, and to adopt alternatives to detention.28 In light of the above, we recommend the insertion of a new paragraph, paragraph 13bis, as set out below. Recommended textual addition (insertion of a new paragraph 13bis) 24 CAT, Concluding Observations: United Kingdom, UN Doc. CAT/C/GBR/CO/5, 24 June 2013, para. 30; CAT, Concluding Observations: Sweden, UN Doc. CAT/C/SWE/CO/6-7. 25 CAT, Concluding Observations: Australia, UN Doc. CAT/C/AUS/CO/4-5, 23 Dec. 2014, para. 16. 26 CAT, Concluding Observations: United Kingdom, UN Doc. CAT/C/GBR/CO/5, 24 June 2013, para. 30; CAT, Concluding Obseravtions: Finland, UN Doc. CAT/C/FIN/CO/7, 20 Jan. 2017, para. 13. 27 Human Rights Council, Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Juan E. Méndez, Report on Children Deprived of Liberty, 5 March 2015, UN Doc. A/HRC/28/68, 1 Feb. 2013, para. 80. 28 Summary of normative standards and recommendations on ending child immigration detention, Interagency Working Group on Ending Child Immigration Detention (IAWG), 2016. 11 AI Index: IOR 40/6040/2017