Why are accelerated procedures a risk to victims of torture? The findings in Part 2 demonstrate that VoTs are at risk of being processed within an accelerated procedure in most EU countries and in Canada. The IRCT finds this concerning as it places VoTs at a greater risk of being returned to their country without a proper and rigorous consideration of all of the evidence in support of their claim. The short time-frames involved in an accelerated procedure fail to take into account the difficulties that a VoT often faces when disclosing the fact that they have experienced torture. The disclosure of past torture is particularly difficult when state authorities are involved in the screening process. The shortened time-limits in an accelerated procedure make it harder for the applicant to obtain an MLR in time to be submitted as evidence, so that it can be considered by the state authorities at the beginning of the determination process. The short time-frames leave little opportunity for an asylum-seeker to seek legal advice, and therefore many asylum-seekers will simply not be aware of what steps they need to take in order to present their claim supported by all relevant evidence. The absence of any clear safeguards to ensure that applicants who have suffered torture or ill treatment are not at risk of return to their country without a rigorous examination of their application is very concerning. The discretion allowed to Member States to include VoTs within an accelerated procedure, if the state authorities decide that “adequate support” can be provided, renders any procedural safeguards for vulnerable persons virtually obsolete. The IRCT believes that the screening of VoTs is in practice often inadequate, and accelerated procedures simply heighten this inadequacy. Do changes to the EU Asylum Procedures Directive (APD) improve safeguards to prevent vulnerable persons from being considered in an accelerated procedure? In the EU, the negotiated changes to recast the APD presented an opportunity to ensure that additional safeguards are in place so that vulnerable persons are not considered within an accelerated procedure. During negotiations, a proposal was put forward to ensure that applicants who are considered to have suffered torture or other forms of ill-treatment and sexual violence are not eligible to have their application considered under an accelerated procedure. However, the safeguard was rejected by the Council and not included in the final version of the recast APD. Instead, “applicants in need of special procedural guarantees”136 should be provided with “adequate support” in order to allow them to benefit from the rights and comply with the obligations of the Directive. The Member States have the discretion to decide whether the accelerated procedure or procedure at the border allows “such adequate support” to be provided. If it cannot be provided, then the applicant should be placed in the normal asylum procedure.137 Canada – changes to the asylum system shorten timelimits In Canada, the Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act 2012138 introduced shorter time-lines for processing asylum claims, including time-lines for submitting the initial asylum application and for scheduling hearings before the Immigration Refugee Board. In addition, asylum claims from “Designated Countries of Origin” (DCOs) will be fast-tracked. The time period for submitting an asylum application (“Basis of Claim” form) is now 15 days, significantly reducing the time available for an applicant to seek legal advice and prepare any documentation in support of the claim. In addition, claims submitted by people from DCOs will be fast-tracked (accelerated) and hearings on these cases are expected to be held no later than 30-45 days after referral of the claim, compared to the 60-day time-frame for other asylum applicants. Failed applicants from DCOs will not be able to appeal the decision to the Refugee Appeal Division, although they will still be able to bring a judicial review claim before the Federal Court. However, even if a judicial review claim is submitted, this will not necessarily prevent the removal of a failed asylum-seeker back to their home country from proceeding.139 66 / Recognising victims of torture in national asylum procedures