for example, as well as the specific problems that stateless persons encounter in this regard. 235. In the case a visa application is refused, the applicant should be duly informed of the reasons for such a decision and of the available remedies to challenge it. Human rights defenders who are denied entry into a country because they have been included on a list prohibiting their entry to one or a group of participating States should also be entitled to know about and challenge these prohibitions. The procedures for such appeals should be established by the respective OSCE participating States. 236. Human rights defenders at imminent risk: Furthermore, participating States should assist human rights defenders who face serious risks to their lives and well-being to move temporarily to a safe environment if they are in need of temporary respite and protection. For example, they should consider issuing multiple entry visas for at-risk human rights defenders that provide them with the flexibility to quickly leave their country if they come under attack. They should also consider adopting and maintaining effective procedures to allow for the issuance of visas under expedite procedures (emergency visas) for that purpose if required (see the section on Framework for implementation for examples of good practices in this regard). Such measures would be in line with the commitment to “pay immediate attention to applications for travel of an urgent humanitarian nature and deal with them favourably”.342 237. T his commitment was reinforced when participating States reaffirmed that they would “ensure, in dealing with visa applications, that these are processed as expeditiously as possible in order, inter alia, to take due account of important family, personal or professional considerations, especially in cases of an urgent, humanitarian nature”.343 PACE has also emphasized the importance of this protection measure and called upon states to “establish humanitarian visa schemes or take any other appropriate measure for human rights defenders facing imminent danger or in need of respite as a consequence of persistent persecution in third countries, or at least facilitate the issue of emergency visas for them in such situations”.344 In this context, the protection needs of the immediate family members of human rights defenders should also be duly taken into account, reviewed favourably and processed as rapidly as possible. 238. Furthermore, in line with their international obligations, participating States should also grant human rights defenders longer-term international protection when they have to flee their country for fear of persecution on account of their human rights work. The non-refoulement obligations under international law must be fully observed under all circumstances. Human rights defenders faced with the 342  Vienna 1989, “Co-operation in Humanitarian and Other Fields”, para. 12. 343  Copenhagen 1990, para. 10(4). 344  PACE Resolution 1660 (2009) on “the Situation of human rights defenders in Council of Europe member states”, para. 12.2. Guidelines on the Protection of Human Rights Defenders 109