A/HRC/19/61/Add.1 Committee in May 2011, the interim Government has not made significant progress towards establishing the new NHRI. The Special Rapporteur notes that a new President of the Higher Committee was appointed in late August by the interim President of Tunisia. However, he stresses that this appointment should not be at the expense of enabling legislation which would provide for the establishment of a NHRI in compliance with the Paris Principles. 1. Prohibition of torture in national legislation 15. Torture is outlawed by article 101bis of the Criminal Code. The article, which was added to the Code by Law No. 89 of 2 August 1999, stipulates that: Any public official or equivalent found guilty of subjecting any person to torture while in the line of duty or while conducting official business shall be sentenced to eight years in prison. Torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind. 16. The Special Rapporteur notes that this definition of torture is incomplete and not fully in conformity with article 1 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The current legislation does not provide for victims to pursue the criminal liability of commanders for acts of torture committed by their subordinates. The Special Rapporteur emphasizes the importance of penalizing all acts of instigation, consent or acquiescence of torture by public officials or other persons acting in an official capacity, including those who order subordinates to torture or who cover up torture after the fact. 2. Safeguards against torture and ill-treatment during arrest and detention 17. The Special Rapporteur notes that article 152 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that the validity of a confession, like any other piece of evidence, if to be admitted must be left to the discretion of the presiding judge (Cassation Criminal Decision No. 12150 of 26 January 2005), and that the Code of Criminal Procedure renders any confession under duress null and void and provides for possible prosecution of those responsible for acts leading to such conditions. However, he expresses concern that in practice there appears to be no instruction to the courts with regard to implementing the latter rule or ordering an immediate, impartial and effective investigation if the rule is violated. Moreover, the Special Rapporteur observes that, in practice, confessions obtained under torture are not expressly excluded as evidence in court. He is further concerned that there are no clear procedures in place prescribing the measures to be taken by courts should evidence appear to have been obtained through torture or ill-treatment, in order to ensure in practice the absolute respect for the principle of inadmissibility of evidence obtained through torture, except against a person accused of torture, in accordance with article 15 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. He recommends that the State legislation provide for a means whereby an individual could challenge the legality of any evidence, in any proceeding, plausibly suspected of having been obtained by torture. 18. Article 13bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure limits the period of garde à vue (police custody) to three days, with one extension for a similar duration. Police custody comes under the oversight of the Prosecutor General, who has the sole authority to extend the period of custody in exceptional circumstances and to order a medical examination of 6