CAT/C/CPV/CO/1 functions, which could prevent the prosecution of public officials working in areas not explicitly mentioned or other persons with delegated functions. The Committee also notes with concern that the purpose of discrimination is not included in the definition of torture. Furthermore, it is concerned that the Criminal Code fails to ensure appropriate penalties for acts of torture, since it sets the minimum penalty as low as two years imprisonment, which would qualify for a suspension and render an attempt to commit torture unpunishable. Notwithstanding the recent amendment to the Criminal Code in 2015 (Legislative Decree 4/2015), the Committee regrets that the crime of torture is still subject to a statute of limitations (arts. 1 and 4). 11. The Committee calls on the State party to amend article 162 of the Criminal Code in order to explicitly include discrimination among the purposes for inflicting torture and to ensure that the infliction of torture by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or any other person acting in an official capacity is also included in the definition of torture, in strict conformity with article 1 of the Convention. The State party should also ensure that both the crime of torture and the attempt to commit such a crime are punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature, as set out in article 4 (2) of the Convention. Furthermore, the State party should ensure that acts amounting to torture are not subject to a statute of limitations. Amnesty and non-derogability of the prohibition of torture 12. While noting the absolute prohibition of torture in article 28 (2) of the Constitution, the Committee is concerned that article 104 of the Criminal Code provides for the possibility of extinction of criminal responsibility through amnesty or pardon, without excluding its application to the crime of torture (art. 2). 13. Recalling its general comments No. 2 (2008) on the implementation of article 2 by States parties and No. 3 (2012) on the implementation of article 14 by States parties, the Committee reiterates that amnesty provisions or other impediments which preclude or indicate unwillingness to provide prompt and fair prosecution and punishment of perpetrators of torture or ill-treatment violate the principle of nonderogability of the prohibition of torture and contribute to a climate of impunity. Accordingly, the Committee urges the State party to amend the Criminal Code to indicate that, where torture offences are concerned, granting of amnesty or pardon shall be inadmissible. Superior orders and due obedience 14. While noting that article 39 of the Criminal Code establishes that due obedience to superior orders ceases when it leads to the commission of a crime, the Committee remains concerned at the lack of information, owing to the absence of the State party report, regarding the existence of mechanisms that offer protection against reprisal by superior officers for subordinates who refuse to obey such orders (art. 2). 15. In the light of the Committee’s general comment No. 2, the State party should guarantee in practice the right of all law enforcement officials and military personnel to refuse to execute, as subordinates, an order from their superior officers that would result in contravention of the Convention. To that effect, the State party should provide information on mechanisms or procedures for protecting a subordinate from reprisal if he or she refuses to carry out such an order. It should also ensure in practice that, in full conformity with article 2 (3) of the Convention, the execution of such an order is not accepted as a justification of torture. 4