86.The report, which mainly addresses legal provisions and lacks detailed information on the practical implementation of the Convention, does not fully comply with the reporting guidelines of the Committee. The Committee emphasizes that the next periodic report should contain more specific information on implementation. B. Positive aspects 87.The Committee notes the following positive developments: (a)The efforts by the State party to address the Committee’s previous concluding observations through, in particular, the important Presidential Decree of 10 March 2000; (b)The declaration under article 22 of the Convention enabling individuals to submit complaints to the Committee; (c)The ratification of several significant human rights treaties, in particular the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; (d)The extensive legal and legislative reforms by the State party, including the adoption of a new Criminal Code and a new Code of Criminal Procedure; (e)The introduction of the offence of torture in the new Criminal Code, and the State party’s report of some convictions for this crime; (f)The transfer of remand centres of the Ministry of Internal Affairs to the authority of the Ministry of Justice; (g)The creation of the post of Ombudsman; (h)The assurances by the State party that it is taking action to reduce the incidence of tuberculosis in places of detention; (i)The agreement concluded with the International Committee of the Red Cross, enabling ICRC representatives to have unrestricted access to convicted persons in places of detention, as well as the State party’s assurance that access for non-governmental organizations to visit and examine conditions in penitentiary establishments is unlimited. C. Subjects of concern 88.The Committee is concerned about: (a)Numerous ongoing allegations of torture and ill-treatment in police facilities and temporary detention facilities, as well as in remand centres and in prisons; (b)The fact that the definition of torture in the new Criminal Code does not fully comply with article 1 of the Convention, because, inter alia, article 133 omits references to the purposes of torture outlined in the Convention, restricts acts of torture to systematic blows or other violent acts, and does not provide for criminal liability of officials who have given tacit consent to torture; (c)The lack of information on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention regarding the transfer of a person to a country where he/she faces a real risk of torture, and on the rights and guarantees granted to the persons concerned; (d)The substantial gap between the legislative framework and its practical implementation; (e)The apparent lack of independence of the judiciary despite the new legislation; (f)Reports that some persons have been held in police custody much beyond the time limit of 48 hours established in the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that in exceptional circumstances, persons can be held in temporary detention for up to 10 days in local police facilities; (g)The lack, in many instances, of prompt and adequate access of persons in police custody or remand centres to independent counsel and a medical doctor, which is an important safeguard against torture; many persons in police custody are reportedly forced to renounce their right to a lawyer, and medical experts are provided only on the order of an official and not at the request of the detainee; (h)The fact that, despite the recommendation of the Special Rapporteur on torture, the remand centre of the Ministry of National Security continues to operate and that it remains under the jurisdiction of the same authorities that conduct the pre-trial investigation; (i)Reports of harassment and attacks against human rights defenders and organizations; (j)The particularly strict regime applied to prisoners serving life sentences; (k)Reports that the ability of detained persons to lodge a complaint is unduly limited by censorship of correspondence and by the failure of the authorities to ensure the protection of the complainants from reprisals; (l)The reported failure of the State party to provide prompt, impartial and full investigations into the numerous allegations of torture and ill-treatment, as well as insufficient efforts to prosecute alleged offenders; (m)The fact that no independent body with a mandate to visit and/or supervise places of detention has been established, and that access by non-governmental organizations to penitentiary facilities is impeded;