Non-refoulement (12) The Committee takes note of the information received that the Danish Special Forces captured 34 men and handed them over to allied forces during a joint military operation in Afghanistan in February-March 2002, in circumstances where allegations later emerged of ill-treatment while the men were in allied forces’ custody. The Committee also notes the State party’s assurance that it undertook a full investigation of the incident reaching the conclusion that it did not violate article 12 of the Third Geneva Convention by handing over the detainees. Finally, the Committee takes note of the State party’s assurances that all detainees were released shortly after their transfer to allied forces’ custody and that none of them were ill-treated while in the said custody. (13) The Committee recalls its constant view (CAT/C/CR/33/3, paras. 4 (b) and (d), and 5 (e) and (f) and CAT/C/USA/CO/2, paras. 20 and 21) that article 3 of the Convention and its obligation of non-refoulement applies to a State party’s military forces, wherever situated, where they exercise effective control over an individual. This remains so even if the State party’s forces are subject to operational command of another State. Accordingly, the transfer of a detainee from its custody to the authority of another State is impermissible when the transferring State was or should have been aware of a real risk of torture (art. 3). With regard to the transfer of detainees within a State party’s effective custody to the custody of any other State, the State party should ensure that it complies fully with article 3 of the Convention in all circumstances. Solitary confinement (14) The Committee notes with appreciation that the upper limit for solitary confinement of persons under the age of 18 is reduced from eight weeks to four weeks. Despite the amendments of the Administration of Justice Act to limit the use of solitary confinement in general, and in particular with respect to persons under the age of 18, the Committee remains concerned at the placement of persons in prolonged solitary confinement during pretrial detention. It notes with particular concern that persons, including persons under the age of 18, suspected of offences against the independence and security of the State (chapter 12 of the Criminal Code) or against the Constitution and the supreme authorities of the State (chapter 13 of the Criminal Code) may be held indefinitely in solitary confinement during their pretrial detention. However, the Committee notes that there is a judicial review mechanism in place to review the need to continue the solitary confinement (art. 11). The State party should continue to monitor the effects of solitary confinement on detainees and the effects of the 2000 and 2006 amendments to the Administration of Justice Act which have reduced the number of grounds that may give rise to solitary confinement and its duration. The State party should limit the use of solitary confinement as a measure of last resort, for as short a time as possible under strict supervision and with a possibility of judicial review. Solitary confinement of persons under the age of 18 should be limited to very exceptional cases. The State party should aim at its eventual abolition (CRC/C/DNK/CO/3, paras. 58-59). With regard to persons suspected of offences against the independence and security of the State (chapter 12 of the Criminal Code) or against the Constitution and the supreme authorities of the State (chapter 13 of the Criminal Code) who may be held indefinitely in solitary confinement during their pretrial detention, the State party should ensure respect for the principle of proportionality and establish strict limits on its use. In addition, the State party should increase the level of psychological meaningful social contact for detainees while in solitary confinement. Prompt and impartial investigations (15) The Committee notes that the State party has responded to the criticism raised by the case of the death in police custody of Jens Arne Ørskov in June 2002, and other individual cases, by setting up a broad-based committee to review and evaluate the current system for handling complaints against the police and processing criminal cases against police officers. Nevertheless, the Committee is concerned at allegations of violations committed by law enforcement officials and, in particular, at the fact that the impartiality of subsequent investigations has been questioned (arts. 12, 13 and 14). 49