The State party should ensure that all detained suspects are afforded, in practice, fundamental legal safeguards during their detention, including the right to access a lawyer, and an independent medical examination, inform a relative and to be informed of their rights at the moment they are deprived of their liberty, including about the charges brought against them, as well as to be promptly presented to a judge. Administrative detention (10) The Committee is concerned about the possibility of “administrative detention in jail” and “administrative arrest” (paragraphs 89 and 215 of the State party report) and about the complete absence of information on such detention in the report as well as from the delegation, especially regarding the competent authority and the applicable legal safeguards (art. 2). The State party should provide the Committee with detailed information on such “administrative detention” and insure that the fundamental legal safeguards also apply in such cases. Chancellor of Justice (11) While noting that the Chancellor of Justice has been designated as the national protection mechanism pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol the Convention, recognizing its role in inspecting places of detention and welcoming the publication of its reports in different languages, the Committee remains concerned about its independence, mandate and resources, as well as its ability to investigate all complaints of violation of the provisions of the Convention (arts. 2 and 11). The State party should consider establishing a national institution for the promotion and protection of human rights, in accordance with the Paris Principles (General Assembly resolution 48/134, annex) and provide it with the adequate resources to carry out its mandate. Non-refoulement (12) While noting that the determination of “a safe country is done on an individual basis by the Citizenship and Migration Board” as well as the list of countries to which persons have been expelled, the Committee is still concerned that the application of the principle of “safe country” may prevent the State party from considering all elements of an individual case, thus not fulfilling all its non-refoulement obligations under the Convention (art. 3). The State party should always assess its non-refoulement obligations under article 3 of the Convention on an individual basis and provide, in practice, all procedural guarantees to the person expelled, returned or extradited. Appropriate penalties for acts of torture in the Penal Code (13) The Committee remains concerned about the inadequacy of the penalties applicable to torture, i.e. of articles 122, 291, 312 and 324 of the Penal Code, ranging from “pecuniary punishment” to a maximum of five years imprisonment (art. 4). The State party should ensure that torture is punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account its grave nature, as set out in paragraph 2 of article 4 of the Convention. Training and education on the provisions of the Convention (14) The Committee is concerned about the insufficient training regarding the provisions of the Convention for law enforcement personnel, including penitentiary staff, judges and prosecutors. The Committee also notes with concern the lack of specific training of medical personnel acting in detention facilities to detect signs of torture and ill-treatment (arts. 10 and 15). 14