CAT/OP/GAB/1 accepted any of the complaints or inquiry procedures provided for in the Convention. The Subcommittee also observes that Gabon submitted its initial report to the Committee against Torture on 26 October 2011, with a delay of 10 years. The Committee considered it on 8 and 9 November 2012 and formulated its recommendations. 5 19. The Subcommittee notes that the Constitution of Gabon prohibits torture and ill treatment in its article 1, paragraph 1, which provides that “no one may be humiliated, abused or tortured, including when under arrest or imprisoned ”. 20. The Subcommittee notes that Gabon adopted a new Criminal Code in 2011 with the aim of strengthening the judiciary and the rights of the defence. Thus, the Criminal Code refers to torture (art. 253) and provides that the perpetrators of such acts will be punished (art. 228). The Subcommittee is nevertheless concerned that the Criminal Code does not give a definition of torture, which would make it possible to classify torture by its constituent elements and facilitate the criminal prosecution of acts of torture. Similarly, the provisions of the Criminal Code related to the non-justification of torture ordered by a superior officer or public authority were deemed by the Committee against Torture not to comply with the Convention. The Subcommittee also notes that, by Act No. 36/2010 of 25 November 2010, Gabon adopted a new Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides for a number of basic legal safeguards for persons arrested and detained, particularly under articles 50 –54. 21. With regard to the submission of evidence, the provisions of articles 313 to 315 establish that any form of evidence, including confessions, may be presented in court, if left to the consideration of the court. Statements and reports only have evidential value if produced in due form. By contrast, statements and reports by crimina l investigation officers and officials are considered authoritative in the absence of written evidence to the contrary. Nevertheless, as the Subcommittee explains below, it noted that these provisions are not always applied by the criminal investigation an d police authorities. Moreover, the rules on the submission of evidence are not clear enough to suggest that confessions obtained under torture are not declared admissible by courts. 22. The Subcommittee is concerned by information collected during its vis it suggesting that some convictions are based on confessions, including confessions obtained under torture. It is also concerned at information received in Lambaréné prison indicating that the prosecutor had prohibited several detainees who had refused to make confessions from communicating with their families for 10 months, in order to “weaken them until they crack”. It is also concerned about information collected during interviews in the offices of the Libreville criminal investigation department indicating that persons held in custody had been forced, under threat of torture, to sign records of hearings without having been able to read them. 23. The Subcommittee notes that the heavy reliance on confessions is exacerbated by the lack of forensic equipment, particularly with regard to criminalistics. The Subcommittee considers an evidence-led, rather than a confession-led, criminal investigation to be one of the basic safeguards, as it significantly reduces the risk of ill-treatment of persons in police custody. 24. The Subcommittee was informed that the prison system and the organization of the prison service are governed by Act No. 55/59 of 15 December 1959 and Decree No. 1002/PR/MISPD, on the organization of an independent prison guard service. The Subcommittee is concerned that an act dating from 1959 is still being applied and has not been modified. The Subcommittee was informed that a new text is being prepared containing provisions on the rights of detainees. __________________ 5 6/24 CAT/C/GAB/CO/1. GE. 15-10283