CAT/C/BEN/CO/3 (b) Increase the independence of the judiciary by, inter alia, reinforcing efforts to combat corruption and undertaking a reform of the National Judicial Council, in order to prevent interference from the executive branch. Juvenile justice 18. While welcoming the fact that the Children’s Code provides for the appointment of specialist juvenile judges, and the establishment of “child-friendly” courts, the Committee is concerned to note that, according to credible reports, many juvenile judges have been reassigned to other positions after being trained. The Committee is still more concerned to note that, according to figures provided orally by the State party’s delegation, a quarter of all cases brought to court involve violence against children, and that the majority of children in detention are awaiting trial and are unaware of the grounds for their detention. The Committee regrets that the State party has not implemented the recommendations made in its previous concluding observations (para. 14) to raise the age of criminal responsibility, which article 236 of the Children’s Code currently sets at 13 years (arts. 2, 11 and 16). 19. The State party should: (a) Appoint independent juvenile judges with security of tenure in every judicial district, having duly provided them with training in the administration of juvenile justice, including alternative measures to detention; (b) Ensure that the juvenile courts are effectively operational and endowed with specialist judges in sufficient number, with a view to expediting proceedings involving children deprived of their liberty; (c) Closely monitor the use of pretrial detention by juvenile judges and ensure compliance with article 14 of the Children’s Code, which stipulates that the arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child should be a measure of last resort and that its duration should be as short as possible; (d) Raise the age of criminal responsibility to bring it in line with international standards; (e) Establish a child protection mechanism to facilitate the early identification and documentation of cases of violence against children and to offer protection measures, including judicial measures, to victims. Pretrial detention 20. Notwithstanding the safeguards established in article 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Committee remains concerned about the misuse of pretrial detention in practice, noting with particular concern that its duration sometimes considerably exceeds the maximum sentence established for the offence. While acknowledging the encouraging indicators provided by the State party, the Committee is concerned that systematic use of pretrial detention remains a practice highly typical of the judicial culture, which directly contributes to prison overcrowding (art. 2). 21. The Committee recommends that the State party: (a) Ensure that pretrial detention is effectively reviewed by a custodial judge, that its duration does not exceed the legally established maximum and is as short as possible, and that its use is exceptional, necessary and proportionate; (b) Actively promote, within the prosecution service and among judges, the use of alternatives to pretrial detention, in accordance with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (the Tokyo Rules); (c) Immediately release all persons who have been detained awaiting trial for a period exceeding the maximum sentence carried by the offence of which they stand accused. GE.19-08899 5