CAT/C/CR/34/CAN page 3 (d) The explicit exclusion of certain categories of persons posing security or criminal risks from the protection against refoulement provided by the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act 2002 (sect. 115, subsect. 2); (e) The State party’s apparent willingness, in the light of the low number of prosecutions for terrorism and torture offences, to resort in the first instance to immigration processes to remove or expel individuals from its territory, thus implicating issues of article 3 of the Convention more readily, rather than subject him or her to the criminal process; (f) The State party’s reluctance to comply with all requests for interim measures of protection, in the context of individual complaints presented under article 22 of the Convention; (g) The absence of effective measures to provide civil compensation to victims of torture in all cases; (h) The still substantial number of “major violent incidents”, defined by the State party as involving serious bodily harm and/or hostage-taking, in the State party’s federal corrections facilities; and (i) Continued allegations of inappropriate use of chemical, irritant, incapacitating and mechanical weapons by law enforcement authorities in the context of crowd control. D. Recommendations 5. The Committee recommends that: (a) The State party unconditionally undertake to respect the absolute nature of article 3 in all circumstances and fully to incorporate the provision of article 3 into the State party’s domestic law; (b) The State party remove the exclusions in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act 2002 described in paragraph 4 (c) and (d) above, thereby extending to currently excluded persons entitlement to the status of protected person, and protection against refoulement on account of a risk of torture; (c) The State party should provide for judicial review of the merits, rather than merely of the reasonableness, of decisions to expel an individual where there are substantial grounds for believing that the person faces a risk of torture; (d) The State party should insist on unrestricted consular access to its nationals who are in detention abroad, with facility for unmonitored meetings and, if required, of appropriate medical expertise; (e) Given the absolute nature of the prohibition against refoulement contained in article 3 of the Convention, the State party should provide the Committee with details on how many cases of extradition or removal subject to receipt of “diplomatic assurances” or guarantees have occurred since 11 September 2001, what the State party’s minimum requirements are for such assurances or guarantees, what measures of subsequent monitoring it has undertaken in such cases and the legal enforceability of the assurances or guarantees given;