CAT/C/ATG/CO/1 (d) The establishment in 2015 of an ad hoc eligibility committee to review asylum applications, in partnership with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the Red Cross of Antigua and Barbuda. C. Principal subjects of concern and recommendations Definition of torture 9. While noting that the Suppression of Torture Act 1993 and the Constitution prohibit acts of torture, the Committee is concerned that the definition of torture in the Act fails to incorporate all the elements, including the purposes, set out in article 1 of the Convention. The Committee is also concerned that there is no express provision establishing that the crime of torture is not subject to a statute of limitations (arts. 1 and 4). 10. The Committee calls on the State party to amend the Suppression of Torture Act 1993 to include all the elements of the definition set out in article 1 of the Convention. The State party should ensure that there is no statute of limitations for the crime of torture. Direct application of the Convention by domestic courts 11. The Committee is concerned about the lack of information on the direct application of the Convention by the domestic courts and on the actual practice, and on cases where the Convention has been directly applied by the domestic courts (arts. 2 and 12). 12. The State party should ensure that the provisions of the Convention are fully applicable in the national legal order. It should also provide information about specific cases in which the Convention has been invoked before the domestic courts. It should provide judicial officials and lawyers with specific training on applying the Convention directly and asserting the rights established in those provisions before the courts. Absolute prohibition of torture 13. The Committee is concerned that article 72 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides for the possibility of extinction of criminal responsibility through pardon without excluding its application to a crime of torture (art. 2). 14. Recalling its general comments No. 2 (2008) on the implementation of article 2 and No. 3 (2012) on the implementation of article 14, 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 illtreatment violate the principle of non-derogability of the prohibition of torture and contribute to a climate of impunity. The State party should amend the relevant legal provisions to expressly indicate that, where torture is concerned, it shall be inadmissible to grant amnesty or pardon. Superior orders and due obedience 15. The Committee is concerned that article 3 of the Suppression of Torture Act 1993 allows a person charged with the crime of torture to use as a defence that s/he had a lawful justification or excuse under domestic laws, without excluding the invocation of a superior order as a justification of torture, as stated in the Convention (art. 2). 16. In the light of article 2 (3) of the Convention and the Committee’s general comment No. 2, the State party should guarantee, in law and 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 contravene the Convention. It should expressly indicate in its domestic legislation that, in full conformity with article 2 (3) of the Convention, the execution of such a superior order is not accepted as a justification for acts of torture. It should also establish an 3