A/HRC/16/52 States and societies that the use of torture and ill-treatment is practically inevitable. In this connection, advances in forensic and other sciences present a more promising answer to these questions than so called “enhanced interrogation techniques” or torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 59. The mandate holder believes that his role as Special Rapporteur does not only give him an opportunity to assess the situation with regard to torture, but also to provide credible and human rights-friendly forensic and other scientific alternatives which have been proven to achieve better results than the use of torture. During his tenure, the Special Rapporteur intends to identify and further develop the linkages between forensic and other sciences, not only with a view to eradicating torture and providing corroborating evidence of torture, but also to offer States credible forensic and other scientific alternatives to employ in law enforcement, counter-terrorism and effective criminal prosecution. D. Non-refoulement and diplomatic assurances 60. Council resolution 13/19 urges States “not to expel, return (refouler), extradite or in any other way transfer a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture, and stresses the importance of effective legal and procedural safeguards in this regard”.8 61. Non-refoulement, as an important principle of international treaty law and international customary law, is provided for in international and regional human rights mechanisms,9 and the jurisprudence of international and regional human rights bodies, such as the Human Rights Committee and the European Court of Human Rights. 62. The Special Rapporteur observes that the principle of non-refoulement has been at the core of discussions both in light of immigration laws, and in the context of countering terrorism. The Special Rapporteur recognizes that diplomatic assurances do not release States from their non-refoulement obligations nor are they necessarily the best way to prevent torture and refoulement. Indeed, diplomatic assurance has been proven to be unreliable, and cannot be considered an effective safeguard against torture and ill-treatment, particularly in States where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person would face the danger of being subjected to torture or ill-treatment. 63. Like his predecessor, the Special Rapporteur regards the practice of diplomatic assurances “as an attempt to circumvent the absolute prohibition of torture and nonrefoulement”.10 E. Pretrial detention 64. The Special Rapporteur emphasizes the importance of monitoring places of pretrial detention and developing effective measures to prevent the perpetration of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including in police custody and pretrial detention centres. Like his predecessors, the Special Rapporteur is of the opinion that legally arrested persons should not be held in facilities under the control of their interrogators or investigators for more than the time required by law to obtain a judicial warrant of pretrial detention which, in any case, should not exceed 48 hours. He further 8 9 10 14 A/HRC/RES/13/19, paragraph 8. See CAT, article 3; Refugee Convention, article 33; ICCPR, article 7; ECHR, article 3. See E/CN.4/2006/6, paragraph 32; A/HRC/10/44/Add.2, paragraph 68.