A/HRC/45/13/Add.1 guarantees in detention can amount to enforced disappearance in some situations, and to the widespread acceptance of the practice. 52. The Working Group calls on Tajikistan to close the practical gaps that exist, in an effort to prevent those abuses. That includes establishing a simple, accessible and effective mechanism for families to be quickly notified of the individual’s location after deprivation of their liberty, to prosecute officials who falsify arrest protocols, to ensure that confessions made under torture or duress are inadmissible in practice – which would help remove the incentive for enforced disappearances of short duration, to implement the concluding observations of the Committee against Torture, particularly in relation to fundamental legal safeguards (CAT/C/TJK/CO/3, para. 18) and to become a party to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. C. Transnational arrests and non-refoulement 53. According to the information received by the Working Group during the visit, there have been a number of cases, recently and in the past, of Tajik individuals, reportedly political opponents, notably members of the Islamic Renaissance Party and of Group 24, who were residing abroad and were forcibly returned to Tajikistan. In some cases, those individuals have appeared in detention in Tajikistan after short periods of enforced disappearance, while in a few instances their whereabouts remain unknown. The authorities claim that they returned voluntarily or indicate that extraditions were carried out in accordance with the law and relevant extradition treaties or security cooperation agreements. Relatives were unaware of the whereabouts of their family members for a few days or months and the authorities provided contradictory information on the modalities for informing relatives of the whereabouts of individuals in such contexts. The Working Group is aware of alleged cases from 2015, 2018 and 2019 concerning at least four States. The Working Group is also aware of cases where individuals were allegedly threatened or subjected to ill-treatment to prevent them from speaking out about their forcible repatriation. 54. An example of such a case of transnational capture is that of the Tajik former opposition leader, which was brought before the European Court of Human Rights, in Iskandarov v. Russia.7 The petitioner was accused in Tajikistan, in his absence, of terrorism and other crimes, and his name was placed on an international list of wanted persons. In December 2004, the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation received a request for his extradition. He was then arrested, but the extradition was refused because he had filed an asylum application in the Russian Federation, which was still pending. He was then kidnapped on 15 April 2005 by several men wearing traffic police uniforms who handcuffed him, placed him in a car and drove off. He was beaten and detained overnight in an unknown location. He was taken, blindfolded, to an airport, where he was put on a plane. After landing at Dushanbe airport, he was handed over to the Tajik law enforcement agencies. He was then held in a cell where he was tortured and kept in poor living conditions. The European Court of Human Rights found that his removal to Tajikistan was in breach of the obligation of the authorities of the Russian Federation to protect him against the risk of ill-treatment. The Working Group recalls that compliance with security cooperation or extradition agreements does not relieve Tajikistan of its obligation to prevent and eradicate enforced disappearances and ensure that relatives are informed of the fate and whereabouts of individuals. 55. Article 8 of the Declaration prohibits expulsion, return or extradition of a person to another State where there are substantial grounds to believe that he or she may be at risk of enforced disappearance. Under international human rights law, the principle of nonrefoulement is of an absolute nature, which means, inter alia, that States cannot transfer or remove foreign nationals from their jurisdiction when the individuals risk being subjected to enforced disappearance, regardless of whether they entered the State regularly, whether they are asylum seekers, refugees, stateless persons, migrant workers or have another status, and whether they maintain or have lost their status. Tajikistan has failed to reflect that 7 European Court of Human Rights, Iskandarov v. Russia, application No. 17185/05, judgment of 23 September 2010. 13