CAT/C/MCO/CO/6 9. The Committee reiterates its previous recommendations (CAT/C/MCO/CO/4-5, para. 7), adopted in June 2011, and requests the State party to incorporate in its criminal law a definition of torture that covers all the elements contained in article 1 of the Convention. In the light of its general comment No. 2 (2007) on the implementation of article 2 by States parties, the Committee considers that, by adopting a definition of the offence of torture in accordance with the definition in the Convention, States parties will directly advance the Convention’s overarching aim of preventing torture. The Committee also requests the State party to amend its legislation in order to establish acts of torture by civilians and by law enforcement officials as separate offences, to recognize the crime of torture as not being subject to any statute of limitations and to incorporate the principle of the invalidity of statements obtained by torture. Absolute prohibition of torture 10. While noting that a law allowing the invocation of exceptional circumstances to justify torture would be found unconstitutional, the Committee remains concerned that the Criminal Code does not include provisions expressly prohibiting the invocation of exceptional circumstances or an order from a superior officer as a justification of torture. Furthermore, while noting the legislative, administrative and judicial measures taken in cases where an act of torture was committed by an official, and the possibility for a subordinate not to execute an illegal order (the theory of “rational obedience”) and subsequently notifying his or her superior officials, the Committee remains concerned at the lack of clear mechanisms to protect subordinates (art. 2). 11. The Committee reiterates its previous recommendations (CAT/C/MCO/CO/4-5, para. 8) and invites the State party to amend its Criminal Code in such a way that it states explicitly that exceptional circumstances or an order from a superior officer may not be invoked as a justification of torture. The Committee draws the attention of the State party to section VII of its general comment No. 2. The State party should also take legislative, administrative, judicial and other measures to prevent acts of torture to strengthen safeguards for any officer who refuses to carry out an illegal order given by a superior officer. Non-refoulement 12. While noting that the Monegasque authorities provide for the administrative and legal protection of refugees residing in the Principality of Monaco and that the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) examines cases and issues advisory opinions, the Committee remains concerned about the lack of clarity regarding the legal grounds for the procedures that are applicable to asylum seekers, the conduct of such procedures, and the safeguards provided. The Committee also remains concerned at the uncertainty surrounding the procedure for cooperation between the State party and OFPRA, which consists merely of an exchange of letters between the authorities of France and of Monaco. The Committee recalls that, in the event that OFPRA practices did not comply with the requirements of the Convention, the State party would incur responsibility. The Committee further reiterates its concern regarding the lack of a mechanism for following up on the cases of asylum seekers dealt with by OFPRA (art. 3). 13. For the purpose of ensuring legal certainty, the State party should ensure that the procedures applicable to asylum seekers and the procedure for cooperation with OFPRA are made clearer and accessible to all. In addition, the Committee would like to receive data on the number of applications submitted to and examined by OFPRA and the number of cases in which the Monegasque authorities have accepted or rejected the opinions of OFPRA and the reasons for doing so. The Committee would GE.17-00420 3