about which this Committee has authoritatively and consistently expressed concern16 (as have other human rights monitoring bodies).17 15. Consequently, the guidance value provided by the General Comment would be enhanced by expressly clarifying that the prohibition of refoulement protects individuals against involuntary transfer across international borders, as well as within a State’s borders. Non-refoulement obligations under the Convention bind States parties in respect of prohibited transfers to any place whatsoever, including within their own territory or within the territory of a third state. In its Concluding Observations this Committee has similarly recommended that a State should “adopt a policy for future military operations that clearly prohibits the prisoner transfers to another country when there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture.”18 In light of the above, we recommend the following revisions of the text of paragraphs 9 and 10. Recommended textual changes and additions. 9. As with all obligations under the Convention, each State party must apply the principle of nonrefoulement in any territory under its jurisdiction. The reference “any territory” refers to prohibited acts committed not only or on board a ship or aircraft registered in the State party to any person without any form of discrimination and regardless of the nationality or statelessness or the legal, administrative or judicial status of the person concerned under ordinary or emergency law, but also during military occupation or peacekeeping operations and in such places as embassies, military bases, detention facilities, or other areas over which a State exercises factual or effective control. [Footnote: General Comment No. 2, paragraph 16; Concluding observations on the combined third to fifth periodic reports of the United States of America (CAT/C/USA/CO/3-5), para. 10; and Concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of Sweden (CAT/C/SWE/CO/5), para. 14.]. As the Committee noted in its General Comment No. 2, “the concept of ‘any territory under its jurisdiction’…includes any territory or facilities and must be applied to protect any person, citizen or non-citizen without discrimination subject to the de jure or de facto control of the State party.” [para. 7]. Furthermore, a State party must respect the prohibition of refoulement in respect of anyone within its power or effective control, even if not situated within the territory of the State Party. [Footnote: Human Rights Committee, General comment no. 31, The nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, 26 May 2004, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13, para. 10; CAT, Concluding observations: United States of America, UN Doc. CAT/C/USA/CO/2, 25 July 2006, para. 20] The prohibition of refoulement proscribes involuntary transfers across international borders, as well as such transfers between jurisdictions within a State’s borders, including transfers to any receiving State, territory or place and to any law enforcement agency, security force or other agency or institution where, or in the custody of which, the person 16 See for instance, CAT, Concluding observations: Canada, UN Doc. CAT/C/CAN/CO/6, 25 June 2012, para. 11; CAT, Concluding observations: Denmark, UN Doc. CAT/C/DNK/CO/6-7, 4 February 2016, para. 18. See also CAT, Agiza v. Sweden, UN Doc. CAT/C/34/D/233/2003, 20 May 2005 (a case where ill-treatment began within the territory of the sending state). 17 See for instance See UN Human Rights Committee (hereinafter HRC), Alzery v. Sweden, UN Doc. CCPR/C/88/D/1416/2005, 10 November 2006; ECtHR, El Masri v Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, App. No. 39630/09, 13 Dec. 2012. 18 The Committee had expressed concern “about several reports that some prisoners transferred by Canadian Forces in Afghanistan into the custody of other countries have experienced torture and ill-treatment (art. 3)” CAT, Concluding Observations: Canada, UN. Doc. CAT/C/CAN/CO/6, 25 June 2012, para. 11; see also the Committee’s Concluding Observations on the United Kingdom, CAT, Concluding Observations: UK, UN Doc. CAT/C/GBR/CO/5, 24 June 2013, para. 19. 8 AI Index: IOR 40/6040/2017