83. The United States’ narrow definition of torture and its exclusion of ill-treatment in its application of the principle of non-refoulement may increase the likelihood that Guantánamo detainees will be transferred to a state where they will be tortured or illtreated. The United States maintains that it would not transfer a detainee in violation of this principle, and has taken actions to resettle some detainees in third countries rather than transferring them to their home country, due to unstable conditions or risks of torture or persecution. 84. Information gathered by ODIHR suggest that the US government relies heavily on diplomatic assurances, which are surrounded by lack of transparency and secrecy, and the absence of an independent, impartial and effective review of these assurances by a competent judicial authority. Additionally, the United States typically does not provide information on the safeguards and monitoring procedures agreed to in diplomatic assurances. The United States likely violated its international legal obligations on nonrefoulement by forcibly transferring some detainees to states allegedly practicing torture and ill-treatment. The lack of an effective, transparent and impartial review of the decisions to transfer detainees also violates the United States legal obligations under this principle. Accountability And Redress 85. Accountability for torture and ill-treatment. At the time of this report, impunity continues for human rights violations committed in the CIA RDI programme and in the detention and treatment of detainees at the Guantánamo Bay detention facility. The US government has thus far failed to hold perpetrators accountable and to comply with its obligations under the ICCPR and CAT to conduct prompt, independent, impartial, thorough and effective investigations and subsequent prosecutions. 86. Particular areas of concerns in contradiction with international law include the limited scope of acts that may be prosecuted as torture and ill-treatment offences, the reliance on statutes of limitations which now likely bar investigations into cases of torture and illtreatment allegedly perpetrated before 2006, and certain legislative provisions that may still be used to negate criminal liability for subordinates involved in acts of torture. 87. Although the US government guarantees that all allegations of abuse, including allegations of historical abuse, are now investigated immediately, the majority of US investigations into such abuses at Guantánamo were not prompt, independent, impartial, thorough and effective. This may amount to a violation of the duty to conduct investigations as prescribed under international law. Only one US official was prosecuted before a courtmartial and none at the federal level, which raises serious concerns about perpetrators of acts of torture not being held accountable and not given penalties reflecting the grave nature of their acts as required under international law. 88. Despite US government admissions that US officials committed acts of torture and illtreatment as part of the CIA RDI programme, numerous allegations of torture, welldocumented cases and international court decisions, the United States has not yet undertaken prompt, independent, impartial, thorough and effective investigations or 23