20 years of combating torture: CPT General Report 2008-2009 92. Obviously, medical confidentiality should be observed in the same way as in the outside community; in particular, irregular migrants’ medical files should not be accessible to non-medical staff but, on the contrary, should be kept under lock and key by the nurse or doctor. Moreover, all medical examinations should be conducted out of the hearing and – unless the doctor concerned requests otherwise in a particular case – out of the sight of custodial staff. Whenever members of the medical and/or nursing staff are unable to make a proper diagnostic evaluation because of language problems, they should be able to benefit without delay from the services of a qualified interpreter. Further, detained irregular migrants should be fully informed about the treatment being offered to them. Three other important safeguards 93. The prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment entails the obligation not to send a person to a country where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would run a real risk of being subjected to torture or other forms of ill-treatment. Accordingly, irregular migrants should have ready access to an asylum procedure (or other residence procedure) which guarantees both confidentiality and an objective and independent analysis of the human rights situation in other countries; an individual assessment of the risk of ill-treatment in case of deportation to the country of origin or a third country should be carried out. The CPT is concerned that in certain countries the time-limit for submitting an application for asylum is limited by law to a number of days from the date of arrival in the country or in a detention facility; applications submitted after the deadline are not considered. Such an approach increases the possibility of persons being sent to a country where they run a real risk of being subjected to torture or other forms of ill-treatment. 94. In this context, the CPT has grave misgivings about the policy adopted by certain countries of intercepting, at sea, boats transporting irregular migrants and returning the persons concerned to North or North-West Africa. A practice with similar implications allegedly takes place at certain European land borders. Countries that implement such policies or practices could well be at risk of breaching the fundamental principle of “non-refoulement”, a principle which forms part of international human rights law as well as of European Union law. This is particularly the case when the countries to which irregular migrants are sent have not ratified or acceded to the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. 95. In line with the Twenty guidelines on forced return adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 May 2005, removal orders should be issued in each and every case based on a decision following national laws and procedures, and in accordance with international human rights obligations. The removal order should be handed over in writing to the person concerned. Moreover, there should be the possibility to appeal against the order, and the deportation should not be carried out before the decision on any appeal has been delivered. The assistance of a lawyer and an interpreter should be guaranteed also at this stage of the procedure. 42