Observations of the NPM on the prevention of torture and other ill-treatment In addition, according to the Committee against Torture (CAT), the penalty contemplated in article 174 of the Criminal Code (two to six years of prison if the offence were serious and from one to three years otherwise) is not consistent with article 4.2 of the Convention against Torture of the UN, which contemplates the obligation to punish any act of torture with adequate penalties, taking into consideration its seriousness, and the obligation to ensure that all acts of torture be considered serious. This opinion is shared by the NPM and the authorities are encouraged to undertake this reform of the law. 55. It is to be avoided that persons in a vulnerable situation (because they are deprived of liberty or due to their imminent repatriation) should encounter difficulties when bringing complaints for ill-treatment or tortures or that such complaints should in practice not be adequately investigated and judged. In cases of torture and ill-treatment, it is essential for the judiciary to carry out an indepth investigation. All parties involved should assume that any complaint for illtreatment or torture will be systematically investigated. A diligent examination by the court authorities and other responsible authorities of any complaints that may be filed for ill-treatment by the public forces and the imposition, where appropriate, of an adequate penalty, has relevant dissuading effects. On the other hand, if the authorities fail to order efficient measures to respond to the complaints filed, the eventual infringers perceive that they are able to inflict ill-treatment without punishment. 56. Along the same lines, the grant of pardons to officers who have been convicted for ill-treatment to persons deprived of liberty should be avoided. Once again, the deterrent effect of the enforcement of a judgment on all its terms against the eventual performance of such actions in future should not be forgotten, which effect disappears on granting pardon, since it gives rise to certain expectations of impurity. 57. It has been verified that fast access to a lawyer immediately following the deprivation of liberty is essential for the prevention of torture and ill-treatment. In this regard, article 520.4 of the Criminal Procedure Act (Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal– LECrim) should be reformed to reduce the maximum term of eight hours in which the right to be assisted by a lawyer should be made effective. 58. With regard to non-voluntary internments of a civil nature, it must be borne in mind that Judgment of the Constitutional Court 132/2010 declared unconstitutional two paragraphs of the first section of article 763 of the Civil Procedure Act, regulating these internments, considering that they should be regulated not by an ordinary act but instead by an organic act. It is unacceptable that, after almost five years have elapsed since the judgment was rendered, this matter has not yet been regulated through an organic act containing a more general and complete regulation of internments of this kind. Particularly, an adequate regulation should be passed, ensuring the grading of the measures to be 39