Advance unedited version Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the Istanbul Protocol);22 (e) The right of appeal by the person concerned against a deportation order to an independent administrative and/or judicial body within a reasonable period of time from the notification of that order and with the suspensive effect of its enforcement;23 (f) An effective training of all officials who deal with persons under procedures of deportation about the respect of the provisions of Article 3 of the Convention in order to avoid decisions contrary to the principle of non-refoulement;24 and (g) An effective training of medical and other personnel dealing with detainees, migrants and asylum seekers in identifying and documenting signs of torture, taking into account the Istanbul Protocol.25 IV. Diplomatic assurances 19. The term “diplomatic assurances” as used in the context of the transfer of a person from one State to another, refers to a formal commitment by the receiving State to the effect that the person concerned will be treated in accordance with conditions set by the sending State and in accordance with international human rights standards. 20. The Committee considers that diplomatic assurances from a State party to the Convention to which a person is to be deported should not be used as a loophole to undermine the principle of non-refoulement as set out in Article 3 of the Convention, where there are substantial grounds for believing that he/she would be in danger of being subjected to torture in that State.26 V. Redress 21. The Committee recalls that it considers the term “redress” in Article 14 of the Convention as encompassing the concepts of “effective remedy” and “reparation”. The 22 23 24 25 26 See e.g. Concluding observations of Cape Verde (CAT/C/CPV/CO/1), para. 29; Concluding observations on the sixth periodic report of New Zealand (CAT/C/NZL/CO/6), para. 18; Concluding observations on the combined sixth and seventh periodic reports of Denmark (CAT/C/DNK/CO/6-7), para. 23. See also communications No. 450/2011, Ali Fadel v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 14 November 2014, paras.7.6 and 7.8; and No. 634/2014, M.B. et al. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 25 November 2016, para. 9.8. See e.g. Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of Finland (CAT/C/FIN/CO/7), para. 13; Concluding observations on the third periodic report of Slovenia (CAT/C/SVN/CO/3), para. 17; and Concluding observations on the second periodic report of Tajikistan (CAT/C/TJK/CO/2), para. 18. See also supra fn. 12. See e.g. Concluding observations on the second periodic report of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, (CAT/C/BOL/CO/2), para. 17; and Concluding observations on the fourth and fifth periodic report of Bulgaria (CAT/C/BGR/CO/4-5), para. 16. See e.g. Concluding observations on the sixth periodic report of New Zealand (CAT/C/NZL/CO/6), supra fn. 22. See e.g Agiza v. Sweden, para. 13.4, supra fn. 3; and communications No. 538/2013, Tursunov v. Kazakhstan, decision of 8 May 2015, para. 9.10; and No. 747/2016, H.Y. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 9 August 2017, para. 10.7. See also e.g. Concluding observations on the combined third to fifth periodic reports of the United States of America (CAT/C/USA/CO/3-5), para. 16; Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Morocco (CAT/C/MAR/CO/4), para. 9; Concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of Germany (CAT/C/DEU/CO/5), para. 25; and Concluding observations on the second periodic report of Albania (CAT/C/ALB/CO/2), para. 19. 5