A/59/324 24. The Special Rapporteur, recalling his own general recommendations, wishes also to refer to the statement issued by the Coalition of International NonGovernmental Organizations against Torture (CINAT) on 14 May 2004 and express his full support for its recommendations, in particular its call for independent, prompt and exhaustive investigations into and, where there is sufficient evidence, prosecution of each and every allegation of torture or other abuse, and for guarantees that there is no impunity for anyone found responsible, regardless of position or rank. He also shares its view that a comprehensive review of interrogation methods should be undertaken to ensure that they comply with international standards prohibiting torture and ill-treatment, and that immediate access of human rights monitors to detention facilities worldwide should be guaranteed. III. The principle of non-refoulement 25. In his report to the General Assembly at its fifty-seventh session, which included a section on the prohibition of torture and other forms of ill-treatment in the context of anti-terrorism measures, one of the issues raised was the right to seek asylum, the principle of non-refoulement and extradition (see A/57/173, paras. 2735). There is no doubt that all human rights issues and, in particular, those pertaining to the prohibition of torture and other forms of ill-treatment continue to be highly relevant to the struggle to prevent and combat acts and strategies of terrorism. Therefore, the Special Rapporteur reverts to these issues and wishes to pay particular attention to the principle of non-refoulement which, like other human rights principles, risks being eroded. 26. It must be recalled that the principle of non-refoulement is firmly anchored in international human rights law, notably in article 3 of the Convention against Torture, which states that “no State Party shall expel, return ‘refouler’, or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture”. In the same vein, the Human Rights Committee considered the link between removal, expulsion or refoulement and torture in its General Comment No. 20: “States parties must not expose individuals to the danger of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment upon return to another country by way of their extradition, expulsion or refoulement”. 27. With respect to the principle of non-refoulement, it is the essential responsibility of States to prevent acts of torture and other forms of ill-treatment being committed, not only against persons within any territory under their own jurisdiction, as spelled out in article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention, but also to prevent such acts by not bringing persons under the control of other States if there are substantial grounds for believing that they would be in danger of being subjected to torture. As the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia cogently argued in Furundzija: “It is insufficient merely to intervene after the infliction of torture, when the physical or moral integrity of human beings has already been irremediably harmed. Consequently, States are bound to put in place all those measures that may pre-empt the perpetration of torture”.6 28. The principle of non-refoulement is an inherent part of the overall absolute and imperative nature of the prohibition of torture and other forms of ill-treatment. In 8