CAT/C/VNM/CO/1 of national security infringements, may in practice be held incommunicado and for much longer periods. The Committee is seriously concerned that the Criminal Procedure Code does not provide for appeal of pretrial detention decisions nor allows for their legality to be reviewed by a court of law (arts. 2, 11 and 16). 25. The State party should: (a) Take all necessary measures to ensure that pretrial detention is closely monitored so that it does not become a systematic and widespread practice, is not arbitrary prolonged and in cases allegedly involving national security does not result in incommunicado detention; (b) Amend the Criminal Procedure Code in order to provide the possibility to appeal pretrial detention decisions and for pretrial detention decisions to be reviewed by a court of law; (c) Monitor the use of pretrial detention and ensure that pretrial detainees are held separately from convicts, that juveniles are not held with adults and that such detention is used only as a measure of last resort; (d) Promote alternatives to pretrial detention, in accordance with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (the Tokyo Rules). Administrative detention 26. The Committee is concerned that persons considered as a threat to security, social order or public safety but who are not subject to penal liability may be detained administratively, without trial, in administrative detention facilities, including compulsory education facilities, reformatory schools, social protection centres and compulsory detoxification centres. It is particularly concerned at reports that fundamental legal safeguards such as access to legal counsel and notification of family members do not apply to these detainees and that they do not have the same conditions of detention as other persons deprived of their liberty, and that in some of these institutions prisoners are obligated to work many hours. The Committee is also concerned that persons in such facilities can be held without a trial for several years, in conditions which may amount to incommunicado detention (arts. 2, 11 and 16). 27. The Committee recommends that the State party: (a) Provide information on the number and type of facilities and institutions where persons are held in administrative detention without trial and on the number and profile of those detained; (b) Ensure that persons in administrative detention enjoy fundamental legal safeguards, such as access to a lawyer or legal aid and the right to notify their family about their detention, and that their conditions of detention and treatment are not inferior to those of other persons deprived of their liberty; (c) Introduce a judicial, and not only administrative, process for placing people in such institutions and ensure that administrative detention is not used as a surrogate for ordinary criminal detention; (d) Ensure that all persons held in administrative detention have the right to appeal their placement in administrative detention institutions. Inadmissibility of statements made as a result of torture 28. While noting the recent changes in legislation, the Committee is gravely concerned at reports of the widespread practice of torture and ill-treatment of persons deprived of their liberty with a view to extracting confessions and other information from them. It is also concerned at the information that, from 2010 to 2015, People’s Courts had not handled any cases regarding testimony obtained by duress or the bribing or forcing of another person to give false testimony or to provide false documents. The Committee is also concerned at reports that some detained persons are forced to sign statements previously prepared by the relevant State officials and to read confessions in public and that some prosecutors and 8