review”,41 including after a negative decision,42 as well as for undocumented immigrants, including unaccompanied minors, in addition to the appointment of a guardian, in order to challenge the lawfulness of their deportation.43 Legal aid should be free of charge, both in administrative and judicial procedures against refoulement, whenever its lack would render the remedy inaccessible and unavailable and thus ineffective. In addition, court fees waivers should be considered when fees are high enough to bar effective access to judicial or independent administrative review.44 As the Committee has observed in various decisions under article 22, 45 requiring complainants to actively seek free legal aid services and to prove the absence of sufficient financial means, could create a disproportionate burden on migrants, already in a situation of heightened vulnerability, particularly if they claim to have been tortured in the past. 34. States parties frequently forcibly transfer persons without giving them time to mount an effective challenge to their transfer. This concern has grown as a result of recent efforts by States to streamline, or fast-track, removal proceedings in some countries. The current draft does not require States parties to give a person reasonable time to prepare a defence against their involuntary transfer. The Committee has previously been critical of States parties that have failed to afford persons minimum fair trial guarantees, including ensuring adequate time to prepare a defence.46 Recommended textual change paragraph 18(b): Guaranteeing access to independent, qualified and free-of-charge legal assistance, including sufficient time to prepare a defence. Providing access of the person alleging previous torture that might be deported to a lawyer and free legal aid when necessary; Proposed textual addition: (new paragraph 18(b) bis) 35. One of the principal obligations of States parties is to incorporate the non-refoulement principle into national law and policy. This obligation is not included in the draft General Comment. Previously, the Committee has detailed the legislative steps States parties must take to prohibit and prevent any kind of refoulement in violation of the Convention. It has stated that the adoption of a law is not enough to implement the non-refoulement principle. In addition there must to be “a legislative framework 41 CAT, Concluding Observations: Cyprus, UN Doc. CAT/C/CYP/CO/4, 16 June 2014; CAT, Concluding Observations: Switzerland, UN Doc. CAT/C/CHE/CO/7, 7 Sept. 2015; CAT, Concluding Observations: Australia, UN Doc. CAT/C/AUS/CO/4-5, 23 Dec. 2014. 42 CAT, Concluding Observations: Switzerland, UN Doc. CAT/C/CHE/CO/7, 7 Sept. 2015. 43 CAT, Concluding Observations: Cyprus, UN Doc. CAT/C/CYP/CO/4, 16 June 2014. 44 CAT, Concluding Observations: Netherlands, UN Doc. CAT/C/NLD/CO/5-6, 20 June 2013. 45 CAT, S.H. v. Norway, UN Doc. CAT/C/23/D/121/1998, 19 Nov. 1999, para. 7.4; CAT, Z.T. v. Norway, U.N. Doc. CAT/C/23/D/127/1999, 19 Nov. 1999, para. 7.4. See also, HRC, G.T. v. Canada, UN Doc. CCPR/C/46/D/420/1990, 23 Nov. 1992; HRC, Warsame v. Canada, UN Doc. CCPR/C/102/D/1959/2010, 1 Sept. 2011. 46 CAT, Abdussamatov et al. v. Kazakhstan, UN Doc. CAT/C/48/D/444/2010, 7 June 2012, para. 13.9; CAT, X. v. Netherlands, UN Doc. CAT/C/16/D/36/1995, 8 May 1996, para. 6.3. 17 AI Index: IOR 40/6040/2017