CAT/C/GAB/CO/1 participation in torture and to define them as acts of torture, in accordance with article 4 of the Convention, and to establish appropriate penalties for that offence. Direct application of the Convention by domestic courts 9. While taking note of the fact that the State party’s delegation has indicated that domestic courts can refer to the Convention for information purposes, the Committee is nonetheless concerned by the lack of detailed information about the status of the Convention in the State party’s domestic legal system. It is also concerned by the lack of information on cases in which the Convention has been applied by the courts of the State party or has been invoked before them. (art. 2) The State party should clarify the nature of the Convention’s status in its domestic legal system. It should ensure that public officials, judges, magistrates, prosecutors and attorneys receive training that covers the provisions of the Convention so that they are in a position to invoke the rights set forth in the Convention directly before the courts of the State party and to assert those rights before the courts. The State party should also provide the Committee with specific, representative examples of cases in which the Convention has been applied directly by the courts or has been invoked before them. Fundamental legal safeguards 10. While noting that, under the laws of the State party, persons in detention are protected by fundamental legal safeguards, the Committee is nevertheless concerned by reports that persons held in police custody or in other places of detention are not always given the benefit of the fundamental legal safeguards provided for in articles 53 and 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In accordance with international standards, the safeguards provided for in those articles include access to legal counsel from the outset of the period of detention, access to a physician of the person’s choice and the right to notify someone of their choice of the arrest. The Committee notes that the length of time that a person can be held in police custody is limited to 48 hours under the Code of Criminal Procedure, but it remains concerned by the fact that, in certain regions, criminal investigation officers can issue a non-renewable eight-day detention order for the purpose of bringing a person before a judge. The Committee is also concerned by the lack of information on the maximum duration of pretrial detention. (art. 2) 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 GE.13-40305 3