(9) The Committee regrets that persons suspected of having committed acts of torture have reportedly been protected by Act No. 90-028 of 9 October 1990 granting amnesty for acts, other than those covered by ordinary law, committed between 26 October 1972 and the date of promulgation of the Act, and deplores the resulting impunity (art. 12). The State party should ensure that all allegations of acts of torture and ill-treatment are investigated, including those committed between 1972 and 1990, set up a truth commission to shed light on the allegations, and consider abrogating the Amnesty Act of 1990 with a view to prosecuting and punishing the authors of those acts. (10) The Committee is concerned at the lack of appropriate legislation and of any effective, independent mechanism to enable victims of torture and ill-treatment to complain and have their case examined promptly and impartially. The Committee also deplores the lack of victim and witness protection legislation and mechanisms (arts. 13 and 14). The State party should establish a fully independent complaints mechanism for victims of torture and ensure that measures are adopted to afford adequate protection to all persons who report acts of torture or ill-treatment. The State party should also enhance the capacity of the standing committee for the compensation of victims of injury caused by the State, established by Decree No. 98-23 of 29 January 1998. Non-refoulement (11) The Committee is concerned at the lack of a legislative framework regulating expulsion, refoulement and extradition. In addition, the Committee is particularly concerned at the fact that the State party’s current expulsion, refoulement and extradition procedures and practices may expose individuals to the risk of torture (arts. 3 and 8). The State party should adopt a legislative framework regulating expulsion, refoulement and extradition in fulfilment of its obligation under article 3 of the Convention. The State party should also take urgent measures to bring current expulsion, refoulement and extradition procedures and practices fully into line with article 3 of the Convention, in particular: (a) Article 21 of the draft Criminal Code should be amended to include the “danger of being subjected to torture” as one of the grounds for the refusal of extradition, as required by article 3 of the Convention; (b) The expulsion, refoulement and extradition of individuals, including undocumented individuals, should be decided by a court after careful assessment of the risk of torture in each case and should be subject to appeal with suspensive effect; (c) The terms of judicial cooperation agreements signed with neighbouring countries should be revised so as to ensure that the transfer of detainees to another signatory State is carried out under a judicial procedure and in strict compliance with article 3 of the Convention. Fundamental safeguards (12) The Committee notes with concern that the existing provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not specifically provide for the right of access to a lawyer for persons held in police custody. Of equal concern to the Committee is the fact that a medical examination, which is carried out by a doctor designated by the public prosecutor, is permitted only by decision of the latter or at the request of the detainee. Lastly, the Committee regrets that defendants rarely request legal assistance (arts. 2 and 11). The State party should reform the provisions of its Code of Criminal Procedure relating to police custody so as to ensure that persons held in custody are effectively protected from physical and mental harm. In particular, the draft Code of Criminal Procedure should guarantee the right to consult a 8