States parties should take all necessary measures to ensure that detention pending asylum, immigration or extradition proceedings is used only as a last resort, when determined to be strictly necessary and proportionate in each individual case, and for as short a period as possible. States parties should also take all necessary steps to prevent cases of de facto indefinite detention and should give particular consideration to the continuing detention of individuals awaiting their transfer to another State, both whenever the Committee has granted interim measures pending its examination of the case and when the Committee has issued a decision holding that the involuntary transfer of the individual concerned would violate Article 3. States parties should also ensure that victims of torture and persons in need of international protection are only detained, if at all, after alternatives to detention have been exhaustively examined and found to be insufficient. States should cease detention of children solely for immigration purposes, as it can never be construed as a measure in the child’s best interests. viii) Paragraph 14 22. We commend the Committee for holding that States parties should refrain from adopting policies or taking measures that, in practice, lead to constructive refoulement. Indeed, States often use less direct means than those listed in the General Comment in their attempts to circumvent the prohibition of refoulement.29 As found by this Committee, States’ tactics may include: reducing or totally cutting off the aid that refugees receive leaving them destitute; using indefinite detention; refusing to process any claims for asylum; or otherwise making life so difficult – deliberately or otherwise – that the individuals feel compelled to leave, even if it means returning to the country from which they fled and where they continue to face a real risk of torture. Such practices are commonly referred to as constructive refoulement. 23. The clarity of paragraph 14 would be enhanced by an express reference to constructive refoulement, followed by an explanation of the same through the examples already featured in paragraph 14 as currently formulated. We recommend that the General Comment make it clear that States parties’ nonrefoulement obligations under the Convention enjoin them from acting or failing to act – whether deliberately or otherwise – in any way that would result in constructive refoulement, thereby exposing the individuals concerned to a real risk of torture or other ill-treatment. 24. We note further that paragraph 14 calls on States not to adopt “detention in poor conditions for indefinite periods” (emphasis added), thus reproaching the use of such measures only when they are adopted concurrently. In keeping with international standards, the General Comment should specify that States should not adopt policies of detention in poor conditions or for indefinite periods. In light of the above, we recommend the following textual changes in bold to text of paragraph 14. Recommended textual change: 14. States parties should not take measures or adopt policies that, in practice, lead to constructive refoulement, such as detention in poor conditions or for indefinite periods,; refusing to process claims for asylum or unduly prolonging them,; cutting funds for assistance programs to asylum seekers,; which would compelling persons in need for of protection under Article 3 of the Convention to return to their country of origin or to go to a third country where they would in spite of face a their personal real risk of being subjected there to torture and or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. States parties’ 29 See for example ECtHR, M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece, App. no. 30696/09, 21 Jan. 2011; ECtHR, M.S. v Belgium, App. no. 50012/08, 31 Jan. 2012. 12 AI Index: IOR 40/6040/2017