CAT/C/UZB/CO/5 there are aggravating circumstances. It should consider amending the criminal code with a view to increasing the length of sentences for the crime of torture, which should be prosecuted under article 235 of the criminal code. Amnesties and statute of limitations 25. The Committee is concerned that the State party continues to award amnesties to individuals convicted of violating article 235, including under the regulation on pardon adopted in May 2018, and that the statute of limitations continues to apply to the crime of torture (arts. 1, 2 and 4). 26. The Committee reiterates (CAT/C/UZB/CO/4, para. 10) its view that amnesties for torture are incompatible with the obligations of States parties regarding the absolute and non-derogable nature of the prohibition of torture, as outlined in the Committee’s general comments No. 2 (2007) on the implementation of article 2 and general comment No. 3 (2012) on the implementation of article 14. Therefore, the State party should refrain from granting amnesties to perpetrators of torture, abstain from issuing pardons to persons found guilty of committing acts of torture and include article 235 of the criminal code in the list of articles for which there is no statute of limitations. Pretrial detention 27. While taking note of the 2017 amendment to article 226 of the criminal procedure code that limits the period during which a person may be detained without appearing before a judge to 48 hours, the Committee is concerned that the 48-hour period only starts running from the moment that a person is brought to a police station or another law enforcement institution, not the very outset of deprivation of liberty. It is also concerned that the 48-hour period may be extended if the investigators and prosecutors present justifications through a judicial decision and that criminal cases continue to be referred for additional investigation (arts. 2, 11–13 and 16). 28. The State party should: (a) Ensure that the period of custody before being brought before a judge does not exceed 48 hours; (b) Ensure that failures in the completion of the initial inquiry do not result in referrals for additional investigations; (c) Ensure that time spent in pretrial detention and arrest is included in the time to be served under the final sentence; (d) Envisage using alternatives to pretrial and remand detention, as laid out in the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (the Tokyo Rules) and the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules). Fundamental legal safeguards 29. The Committee remains seriously concerned that not all persons deprived of their liberty enjoy, in practice, all the fundamental legal safeguards from the very outset of their detention. It is concerned, in particular, that law enforcement officials prevent detained persons from meeting with their lawyers or create obstacles for such meetings; that lawyers are sometimes threatened with physical violence from law enforcement officers; and that there are no separate rooms to meet privately with clients. The case of Kadyr Yusupov illustrates how safeguards were absent, leading to an inadequate legal defence or a lack of access to one’s attorney and relatives (arts. 2, 11–13, 15 and 16). 30. The Committee reiterates its recommendation (CAT/C/UZB/CO/4, para. 13), that the State party should adopt measures to ensure in law and practice that every person deprived of his or her liberty, including pursuant to domestic administrative law, is afforded legal safeguards against torture from the outset of detention, in accordance with international standards. The State party should: (a) Ensure that all persons deprived of their liberty are: 7