(13) The absence of legal provisions that explicitly prohibit the expulsion, refoulement or extradition of a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that that person would be in danger of being subjected to torture. Further, there is no provision in domestic law that grants asylum or refugee status, offering protection to such persons. The State party should ensure respect in law and practice for the obligations set forth in article 3 of the Convention in all circumstances, and fully incorporate provisions into domestic law that regulate asylum and refugee status. (14) There are different regimes applicable, in law and in practice, to nationals and foreigners in relation to their legal right to be free from conduct that violates the provisions of the Convention, including their human right to complain of such conduct. The State party should ensure that the Convention and its protections are applicable to all acts that are in violation of the Convention and that occur within its jurisdiction, from which it follows that all persons are entitled, in equal measure and without discrimination, to the rights contained therein. (15) The apparent absence of training with regard to education and information about the prohibition of torture, and insufficient awareness by public officials on the provisions of the Convention. The State party should ensure that trainings and programmes are organized for law-enforcement, civil, military and medical personnel, public officials and other persons who may be involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual deprived of his/her liberty, in order to allow them to identify the physical consequences of torture, to respect the absolute prohibition of torture, and to take measures to ensure prompt and effective investigations into complaints of any such acts. The Committee further encourages the State party to take into account gender issues and to ensure that training programmes are provided to medical personnel engaged in rehabilitation. (16) Some detainees are subject to limitations on the right to have access to a lawyer, an independent doctor, and/or to notify one’s family. For example, despite the provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code requiring persons to be charged or released within 48 hours, detentions for periods of up to six months, and in certain cases, up to two years, may be imposed for persons detained under the Protection of Society Law, which does not provide the right to have access to an attorney or one’s relatives during this extended period. In addition, reported unequal treatment of non-citizens in the arrest and detention process raises concern in this regard. The State party should ensure in law and practice that all persons detained or in custody have prompt access to a lawyer and to an independent doctor, as well as the means to notify a relative when detained, all important safeguards against torture and ill-treatment. (17) The National Human Rights Committee has begun to visit places of detention, which can be an important step in advancing protection of the obligations under the Convention in the State party. However, the Committee is concerned about the adequacy and frequency of such visits, whether complaints are investigated promptly and thoroughly, whether its members have access to all persons detained, and if it reports publicly on its findings. Further, inasmuch as a majority of the members of the National Human Rights Committee are high-level government officials, there are concerns that the National Human Rights Committee may not be fully independent. Efforts should be made to ensure that the activities of the National Human Rights Committee are brought into full compliance with principles governing national human rights institutions (the Paris Principles), including with regard to its independence. 56