CAT/C/TLS/CO/1 of liberty, including the rights to be assisted by a lawyer without delay, to have immediate access to an independent medical doctor, regardless of any medical examination that may be conducted at the request of the authorities, to be informed of the reasons for their arrest and the nature of the charges against them in a language that they understand, to be registered at the place of detention, to inform promptly a close relative or a third party concerning their arrest and to be brought before a judge without delay; (b) Ensure that all police stations have standard operating procedures setting out these fundamental legal safeguards on file and raise awareness about these requirements among police officials and the public; (c) Ensure the availability in practice of legal aid for all persons deprived of their liberty, in particular by endeavouring to employ public defenders in all of the country’s municipalities; (d) Strengthen the independent monitoring of police stations to ensure that police provide fundamental safeguards in practice, including by ensuring that the Office of the Ombudsman for Human Rights and Justice has sufficient resources to conduct unannounced visits to all police stations on a regular basis; (e) Promulgate a uniform detention register for use in all police stations, ensure that police accurately record detailed information on every case of deprivation of liberty in such registries and endeavour to create a central registry; (f) Consider creating an autonomous police oversight body that is empowered to receive complaints concerning failure by police personnel to afford fundamental safeguards in practice, including from the Office of the Ombudsman for Human Rights and Justice, and to make official decisions about disciplinary punishments; (g) Collect any data on cases in which police officers have been disciplined for failing to provide fundamental safeguards and provide this in the State party’s next periodic report to the Committee. Definition and criminalization of torture 20. The Committee notes with concern that acts of torture and ill-treatment are treated as if they were the same offence under the provisions of the State party’s Criminal Code. In addition, the definition set out in its article 167 is limited to acts directly committed by persons vested with specific public functions, which could prevent prosecution of public officials working in areas not explicitly mentioned or other persons with delegated functions or officials who consent or acquiesce to the infliction of severe pain or suffering by others. The Committee also notes that the definition of torture contained in the Criminal Code does not include pain and suffering inflicted for the purpose of discrimination of any kind, as required by the Convention. Lastly, it is concerned that the Criminal Code fails to ensure appropriate penalties for acts of torture, since it sets the minimum penalty for torture at only two years of imprisonment (arts. 1 and 4). 21. The State party should align article 167 of the Criminal Code with article 1 of the Convention by: (a) Defining torture as a specific offence that is distinct from ill-treatment; (b) Ensuring that the infliction of torture by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or any other person acting in an official capacity is included in the definition; (c) Explicitly including discrimination of any kind among the purposes for inflicting torture; (d) Ensuring that the crime of torture is punishable by appropriate penalties that take into account its grave nature, in accordance with article 4 (2), of the Convention. The Committee draws the State party’s attention to its general comment No. 2 (2007) on the implementation of article 2, in which it states that serious 6