CAT/C/CHN/CO/5 5. The Committee also welcomes the initiatives of the State party to adopt policies and administrative measures to give effect to the Convention, including: (a) The Supreme People’s Court Interpretation on the Application of the Criminal Procedure Law of 2012, which recognizes the infliction of mental suffering as torture; (b) The adoption of the National Plan of Action on Combating Human Trafficking (2013-2020); (c) The abolition in 2014 of the “re-education through labour” system of administrative detention; (d) The full implementation in 2014 of audio and video recordings for the entire process of interrogation of criminal suspects in major cases. C. Principal subjects of concern and recommendations Pending follow-up issues from the previous reporting cycle 6. While noting with appreciation the State party’s compliance with the follow-up procedure and the written information provided by the State party on 9 December 2009 (CAT/C/CHN/CO/4/Add.2), the Committee regrets that the recommendations identified for follow-up in the previous concluding observations have not yet been implemented. Those recommendations concerned: legal safeguards to prevent torture; the State Secrets Law and reported harassment of lawyers, human rights defenders and petitioners; the lack of statistical information; and accountability for the events in the autonomous region of Tibet and neighbouring Tibetan prefectures and counties (CAT/C/CHN/CO/4, paras. 11, 15, 17 and 23, respectively). Definition of torture 7. The Committee notes that various provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law and the Criminal Law, as amended in 2014, prohibit and punish specific acts that could be considered as torture. However, it remains concerned that those provisions do not include all the elements of the definition of torture set out in article 1 of the Convention. In particular: (a) While noting the provisions established to prohibit the extraction of confessions under torture or the use of violence to obtain a witness statement (article 247 of the Criminal Law), the Committee is concerned that the prohibition may not cover all public officials and persons acting in an official capacity. Moreover, the provisions do not address the use of torture for purposes other than extracting confessions from defendants or criminal suspects; (b) The crime of beating or ill-treating detainees, contained in article 248 of the Criminal Law, restricts the scope of the crime to the actions of officers of an institution of confinement or of other detainees at the instigation of those officers. It is also restricted to the infliction of physical abuse only. 8. The Committee appreciates that the Supreme People’s Court recognizes as torture the use of other methods that cause the defendant to suffer severe mental pain or suffering (see para. 5 (a) above). However, it remains concerned that the Court’s interpretation applies to questions regarding exclusion of evidence rather than criminal liability (arts. 2 and 4). 9. The Committee reiterates its previous recommendations (see CAT/C/CHN/CO/4, paras. 32 and 33, and A/55/44, para. 123) and calls upon the State 2