A/65/44 (art. 312 of the Criminal Code) and up to five years in the case of bodily injury (arts. 83–85 of the Criminal Code) provide for very lenient punishment. The Committee reminds the State party that, in accordance with the Convention, each State party should make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature (art. 4). The State party should make the offences that amount to acts of torture punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature, in accordance with article 4 of the Convention. Statute of limitations (9) The Committee is also concerned that, as a result of criminalizing acts of torture pursuant to articles 83–85 and 312 of the Criminal Code, the statute of limitations with respect to offences that would amount to torture is limited to five years. In this respect, the Committee is concerned that the State party does not intend to amend the Criminal Code “so as to eliminate the statute of limitations applicable to cases of torture”. No justification for imposing time limits on the obligation of the State party to investigate and prosecute crimes of torture, including the lack of court decisions as referred to in the State party’s written reply, is acceptable (arts. 2, 4 and 12). The State party should ensure that acts amounting to torture are not subject to any statute of limitations. Fundamental safeguards The right to have access to a medical doctor (10) The Committee welcomes the new Execution of Sentences Act which, inter alia, guarantees the right of sentenced prisoners to be examined by a doctor upon admission or as soon as possible thereafter. The Committee is concerned, however, that the same right is not legally guaranteed to all persons deprived of their liberty as from the very outset of their detention. In this context, the Committee regrets that the new Public Health Act no longer contains an explicit provision regarding access to a doctor during police custody (former section 7a, para. 3 (b)) and that it is not clearly guaranteed by either the Criminal Code or the Code of Criminal Procedure. Also, while appreciating that the handouts of legal instructions on legal safeguards provided by the National Police to persons deprived of their liberty provide for the exercise of the right to access to a doctor as from the very outset of their detention, the Committee is concerned that the legal handouts to foreign nationals do not explicitly provide this right (arts. 2 and 11). The State party should ensure that the right of all persons deprived of their liberty, including foreign nationals, to have access to an independent doctor, if possible of their own choice, as from the very outset of their detention, is explicitly guaranteed in its domestic law. Right to have access to a lawyer and to inform relatives (11) The Committee notes with appreciation that, pursuant to the revision of the Code of Criminal Procedures, “all apprehended persons” are legally guaranteed the right to have access to a defence lawyer and to inform a relative or another person of trust of their arrest “at the time of apprehension or immediately thereafter” (art. 128a). Noting its restrictions during interrogations, the Committee welcomes information by the State party that the Code of Criminal Procedure is under complete revision and will stipulate that any person being interviewed or interrogated by the police will have the right to have a lawyer present during the first police investigation. However, the Committee is concerned that, at present, the legal instructions handed out to foreign nationals provide the arrested person with the choice between the right to inform either a family member or a lawyer (arts. 2, 11 and 12). 112 GE.10-44721