CAT/C/SEN/CO/3 C. Principal subjects of concern and recommendations Definition of torture 8. While taking note of the amendment to the Criminal Code (Act No. 96-15 of 28 August 1996), article 295-1 of which defines torture as required by article 1 of the Convention, the Committee regrets that the definition does not include certain key elements of article 1, notably the reference to “a third person” other than the victim (art. 1). The State party should revise its Criminal Code, particularly article 295-1 on the definition of torture, to bring it fully into line with article 1 of the Convention. In particular, it should include in the definition acts aimed at obtaining information from, punishing, intimidating or coercing a third person. Absolute prohibition of torture 9. The Committee is concerned about the State party’s justification of amnesty laws in relation to the situation in Casamance on the grounds that they are vital for the restoration of peace. The Committee reiterates its concern that the State party’s laws should not encourage impunity for acts of torture or violate article 2 of the Convention, which states that “internal political instability” may not be invoked as a justification of torture (art. 2). In the light of its general comments Nos. 2 (CAT/C/GC/2) and 3 (CAT/C/GC/3), the Committee considers that amnesties or other impediments which preclude prompt and fair prosecution and punishment of perpetrators of torture or ill-treatment violate the principle of non-derogability of the prohibition of torture. They would constitute an intolerable obstacle for victims seeking redress, and would contribute to a climate of impunity. In view of this, the Committee urges the State party to repeal any amnesty for torture or ill-treatment and to provide it with detailed information on the redress granted to torture victims in Casamance. Fundamental legal safeguards 10. The Committee is concerned that detainees do not enjoy all their fundamental rights from the moment they are, de facto, deprived of liberty, especially since legislation provides for the assistance of a lawyer only as from the twenty-fifth hour of detention and the right to be examined by an independent doctor is not systematically observed. The Committee remains deeply concerned about the practice known as retour de parquet, which prolongs the custody of persons who have already been brought before the prosecutor and violates the right of detainees to be brought promptly before a judge. The Committee also notes that there is a shortage of lawyers in Senegal, especially in the more remote parts of the country (arts. 2, 11 and 12). The State party should: (a) Take effective steps without delay to ensure that all detainees enjoy, de jure and de facto, all legal safeguards from the moment they are deprived of liberty, particularly the rights to be informed of the reasons for their arrest, including the charges against them; to have prompt access to a lawyer and, if necessary, to legal aid; to be examined by an independent doctor; to notify a relative, and to be brought promptly before a judge; (b) Provide the judicial system with additional financial and human resources with a view to ending the practice known as retour de parquet and reducing the time taken to bring cases to court; (c) Take the necessary steps to increase the resources allocated to the Bar Association, with a view to guaranteeing access to legal assistance for the most GE.13-40312 3