A/68/44 The State party should promptly adopt effective measures to ensure that, both by law and in practice, all persons deprived of their liberty have the benefit of all fundamental legal safeguards from the moment that they are taken into custody. These safeguards include the right of every such person to be informed of the reasons for his or her arrest and all charges brought against him or her, to have prompt access to legal counsel and to meet with counsel in private, to be examined by a physician of his or her choice, to notify a friend or family member, to be assisted by a lawyer when being questioned by the police and, if necessary, by an interpreter, to be provided with legal aid if needed, to be brought promptly before a judge and to have the legality of his or her detention reviewed by a court. The State party should amend its legislation in accordance with international standards in order to eliminate the possibility that criminal investigation officers can issue an eight-day detention order. Order from a superior (11) The Committee is concerned by the fact that articles 49 and 49 bis of the Criminal Code, which are viewed by the State party as fulfilling its obligation to ensure that an order from a superior or a public authority cannot be invoked as a justification for an act of torture, do not fulfil the obligation set forth in article 2, paragraph 3, of the Convention. The Committee is equally concerned by the fact that articles 12 and 15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not provide for sufficient mechanisms or procedures for protecting subordinates from reprisals if they refuse to obey a superior who orders them to commit an act of torture (art. 2). The State party should guarantee, both by law and in practice, a subordinate’s right to refuse to carry out an order from a superior that is in breach of the Convention. It should also make certain that, in full conformity with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Convention, the execution of such an order is not accepted as a justification for torture. The State party should put mechanisms or procedures into place for protecting a subordinate from reprisals if he or she refuses to carry out an order from a superior that is in breach of the Convention. National Human Rights Commission (12) The Committee takes note of the fact that the State party has established the National Human Rights Commission in accordance with Act No. 19/2005 of 3 January 2006 and Decree No. 303/PR/MCAEPRDH of 31 March 2008, which sets forth the procedure to be used for designating the Commission’s members. The Committee is concerned, however, by the fact that the Commission does not yet have offices. In addition, the Commission does not have sufficient financial and human resources, lacks safeguards that would ensure its members’ independence and is not accredited with the International Coordination Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (art. 2). The State party should, as a matter of urgency, take steps to ensure that the National Human Rights Commission is functioning as it should, to guarantee its independence, and to provide it with the financial and human resources that it needs to discharge its mandate in full compliance with the Principles relating to the status of national institutions (Paris Principles, General Assembly resolution 48/134). The State party should also apply to the International Coordination Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights for accreditation of the National Human Rights Commission. National mechanism for the prevention of torture (13) The Committee regrets that the State party has not established a national preventive mechanism since its ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture GE.13-46043 15