CAT/C/ISR/CO/5 all territory and persons under the jurisdiction of the State party, including the Occupied Territories, in accordance with the Committee’s general comment No. 2 (2007), the views of other treaty bodies and the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice. National human rights institution 10. While noting the State party’s support for the establishment of a national human rights institution in line with the Principles relating to the status of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (the Paris Principles) expressed in the context of its universal periodic review by the Human Rights Council (see A/HRC/25/15, para. 136.25 and A/HRC/25/15/Add.1, para. 9), the Committee is concerned that such an institution has not yet been established (art. 2). 11. The Committee recommends that the State party establish an independent national institution for the promotion and protection of human rights in full compliance with the Paris Principles. Definition and criminalization of torture 12. The Committee remains concerned that a specific offence of torture based on the definition in article 1 of the Convention has not yet been adopted. It notes that a bill incorporating a separate offence of torture into Israeli law is in the process of being drafted by the Ministry of Justice at the instruction of the Attorney General (arts. 1, 2 and 4). 13. Recalling its previous recommendations (A/57/44, para. 53 (a), and CAT/C/ISR/CO/4, para. 13), the Committee calls upon the State party to take the measures necessary to speed up the process aimed at incorporating a specific offence of torture into domestic law and to ensure that the offence provides for a definition of torture that is in full conformity with the definition contained in article 1 of the Convention and for penalties that are commensurate with its grave nature, in accordance with article 4 (2). Necessity defence 14. The Committee regrets that the State party has not provided the information requested by the Committee on use of the necessity defence in the context of interrogations. The Committee recalls that article 2 (2) of the Convention provides that the prohibition of torture is absolute and non-derogable and that no exceptional circumstances whatsoever may be invoked by a State party to justify acts of torture. In this respect, the Committee is concerned that the necessity defence, which is contained in section 34 (11) of the Penal Law as a defence afforded to any defendant in criminal cases, has not been explicitly excluded for cases involving torture. Thus it could still be invoked post factum as a possible justification for torture in the context of interrogations carried out in situations involving impending threats to human lives and as a result lead to a lack of proper accountability (art. 2). 15. The Committee recommends that the State party incorporate into domestic law the principle of the absolute prohibition of torture in conformity with article 2 (2) of the Convention and, recalling its previous recommendations (A/57/44, para. 53 (i) and CAT/C/ISR/CO/4, para. 14), that it completely remove necessity as a possible justification for torture. Access to a lawyer and arraignment before a judge 16. While noting that as a general rule persons deprived of liberty are enabled to meet with their lawyer without delay, the Committee remains concerned that legislation still GE.16-08992 3