CAT/C/JOR/CO/3 the Committee is concerned that non-governmental organizations are not granted access to correctional and rehabilitation centres (arts. 2, 11 and 16). 32. The State party should ensure that the National Centre for Human Rights is granted access to all detention facilities and is able to carry out unannounced and regular visits to all such facilities. Alternatively, the State party should establish an independent monitoring mechanism with the mandate to carry out regular and unannounced visits to all places of detention. The Committee calls on the State party to closely study the recommendations put forward by the Centre following its visits to detention facilities and to take appropriate steps to implement the recommendations, including and in particular where allegations of torture or ill-treatment are raised in the reports. To that end, the State party should increase the resources allocated to the Centre so as to enable it to discharge its role effectively. The Committee encourages the State party to grant NGOs access to places of detention. It also invites the State party to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention. Complaint and investigation mechanisms 33. The Committee is concerned about the State party’s continuous failure to establish an independent mechanism to investigate ill-treatment and allegations of torture. In that regard, it is concerned that existing complaints mechanisms, such as submitting a complaint to the Director of the prison or to the Legal Affairs Department or the Grievances and Human Rights Office of the Public Security Directorate, lack confidentiality and fail to protect complainants and witnesses, while existing investigation bodies, principally the public prosecutor, lack the necessary independence as they are in the same structure that employs the alleged perpetrators. Furthermore, the Committee is concerned about reports that inmates and prisoners are pressured not to not lodge complaints or to withdraw their complaints, otherwise complainants risk being subjected to reprisals. The Committee is also concerned that only a few complaints of ill-treatment or torture have led to prosecution and none has resulted in a conviction (arts. 2, 12, 13 and 16). 34. The Committee urges the State party to: (a) Establish an independent complaint and investigation mechanism that complies with the requirement of institutional independence in order to avoid conflict of interest in the investigation of complaints by peers; (b) Ensure that all complaints of torture or ill-treatment are promptly investigated in an impartial manner and that suspected perpetrators are duly tried and, if found guilty, punished in a manner that is commensurate with the gravity of their acts; (c) Ensure that the authorities conduct investigations on their own initiative, whenever there are reasonable grounds to believe that an act of torture or illtreatment has been committed; (d) Ensure that alleged perpetrators of torture and ill-treatment are immediately suspended from duty for the duration of the investigation; (e) Ensure that complainants are protected against any ill-treatment, intimidation or reprisals as a consequence of their complaint and that appropriate disciplinary or, where relevant, criminal measures are taken against law enforcement officials for such actions. Anti-terrorism measures 35. The Committee is concerned that the amendments introduced to the Anti-Terrorism Law No. 55 in 2014 broadened the already vague definition of terrorist acts and expanded 7