CAT/C/NLD/CO/7 National human rights institutions 24. While taking note of the statement by the delegation of Aruba that draft legislation on establishing an ombudsman and children’s ombudsman is awaiting a public debate, the Committee regrets that despite the commitment made by the Governments of Aruba and Curaçao during the universal periodic review in 2012, none of the autonomous territories has established a national human rights institution. While taking note of the existing human rights mechanisms, including the Human Rights Platform and the National Reporting Bureau on Human Trafficking, it also regrets that Sint Maarten does not have any immediate plans to establish a national human rights institution (arts. 2 and 12). 25. The Committee reiterates its recommendations (CAT/ C/NLD/CO/5-6, para. 29) that the Governments of Aruba and Curaçao deliver on their commitment and establish separate national human rights institutions as a matter of priority. The Government of Sint Maarten should also consider establishing a national human rights institution. Pretrial detention 26. While taking note of the available alternatives to pretrial detention and the ongoing efforts by the Public Prosecution Service and the judiciary to increase the use thereof, the Committee remains concerned at reports of the high percentage of pretrial detainees and the low level of use of alternatives. It is particularly concerned at reports pointing at the high percentage of juvenile detainees on remand (80 per cent). It also notes with concern that legislative amendments made by the Netherlands in 2015, and to be adopted by Curaçao, further extend the grounds for pretrial detention and that there may not be sufficient safeguards to guarantee that pretrial detention is only used as a measure of last resort. While noting the bill currently being drafted to amend the Code of Criminal Procedure in Aruba, the Committee regrets the lengthy duration of pretrial detention in Aruba and Curaçao and the absence of information on the number of their pretrial detainees (arts. 2, 11 and 16). 27. Recalling the Committee’s recommendations (CAT/ C/NLD/CO/5-6, para. 20), the State party should take measures to: (a) Reduce the use of pretrial detention and ensure that the decisions imposing pretrial detention are duly substantiated; (b) Use pretrial detention as a measure of last resort, consider alternative measures to its use and observe the presumption of innocence; (c) Amend legislation to reduce the maximum duration of pretrial detention and limit the grounds for pretrial detention. Detainees suspected or convicted of terrorism charges 28. The Committee is concerned at information that the application of article 20 (a) of the regulation on classification, placement and transfer of detainees leads to an automatic placement of a person suspected or convicted of terrorism in high security units designated for terrorists, known as “TA”, without any individual assessment. It notes reports that detainees in the TA units are routinely subjected to very restrictive regimes, including limited contact with outside and constant surveillance. It is particularly concerned about reports of prolonged solitary confinement in the TA units. It is also concerned about reports of the frequent and routine use of full-nudity body searches which occur after, and sometimes also prior to, a detainee meeting in person with outside visitors, including close family members and children, as well as when detainees leave the prison for court or police hearings. It is further concerned at the reported lack of effective complaint mechanisms in the TA units and the absence of statistical data on the number of complaints filed by detainees in the TA units and the nature and outcome thereof (arts. 2, 12, 13 and 16). 29. The State party should: 7