A/HRC/31/57/Add.1 and well. 24. However, the Special Rapporteur finds that the Government, in its reply, did not sufficiently address the concerns raised about the “enhanced screening procedure” for unauthorized maritime arrivals, and measures taken to ensure that all asylum seekers are afforded a fair opportunity to state a claim for refugee status in compliance with the principles of non-refoulement. In particular, no information has been provided as to whether the asylum seekers were asked specific questions during their screening interview to determine whether they risked torture or cruel and unusual treatment, in addition to being asked about more general risk of persecution. Concerns raised about allegations that asylum seekers are not advised of their right to seek asylum and CAT relief, that no access to legal representation is provided unless specifically requested, and that no appeal mechanism exists to remedy errors in decision making, were furthermore not addressed. This is of particular concern given that official information from the Parliament of Australia, updated on 2 March 2015, indicated that although between 70 and 100 per cent of asylum seekers arriving by boat in the past have been found to be refugees, all claims for protection have been refused. 25. The Special Rapporteur reminds the government that, as observed in his 2015 report to the General Assembly (A/70/303), obligations enshrined in the CAT also apply to State vessels patrolling or conducting border control operations on the high seas; nonrefoulement under the Convention must be assessed independently of refugee status determinations (to ensure that the fundamental right to be free from torture or other illtreatment is respected even in cases where non-refoulement under refugee law may not apply); the procurement of diplomatic assurances cannot be used by States to escape their absolute obligation to refrain from non-refoulement; and post-return monitoring mechanisms do little to mitigate the risk of torture (paras. 38-42). 26. The Special Rapporteur strongly urges the government of Australia to take measures to ensure that its “enhanced screening procedure” is brought fully in line with its nonrefoulement obligations under international law. (d) JAL 12/11/2015 Case No. AUS 6/2015 State Reply: 12/01/2016 and 15/01/2016 Allegations concerning undue restrictions, harassment, and reprisals against asylum seekers defending their rights and the rights of other detained asylum seekers, from within the detention facilities; as well as against human rights defenders and journalists who are documenting and reporting on the conditions of detention and illtreatment in detention centres in Nauru, which may amount to torture. 27. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Australia for its replies, dated 12 January 2016 and 15 January 2016, to the present communication. 28. The Rapporteur takes note of the information provided by the Government that the immigration detention facilities in Nauru and Papua New Guinea are under the sovereignty and control of the respective governments of those countries. Nevertheless, those governments hold immigrants in those centres for the sole purpose of implementing Australia’s policies of interdiction in the high seas, discouragement of asylum seekers and processing of requests for asylum in Australia. For that reason, Australia bears responsibility for the treatment of immigrants and asylum seekers in those centres. In spite of the information supplied by the Government, its reply fails to provide information about the allegations of ill-treatment or about any investigation into the allegations. 29. In the Rapporteur’s interim report to the General Assembly of 5 August 2011 (A/66/268), the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment defined solitary confinement, in accordance with the Istanbul Statement on the Use and Effects of Solitary Confinement, as the physical and social isolation of individuals who are confined in their cells for 22 to 24 hours a day. He observed that while solitary confinement for short periods of time may be justified under 10