CAT/C/SLE/CO/1 make the necessary legislative amendments to ensure that sections 33 and 35 of the Child Rights Act are aligned with this recommendation. Amnesties and non-derogability of the prohibition of torture 9. The Committee is concerned at the State party’s statement in the State report that acts of torture were committed from 1992 to 1998 during the military regimes (CAT/C/SLE/1, para. 42), and by the fact that the Lomé Peace Agreement (Ratification) Act of 1999 provides amnesty to all combatants for any actions carried out in pursuit of their objectives during this period. While acknowledging that a number of persons have been tried and convicted by the Special Court for Sierra Leone, the Committee notes that this international criminal court only has the competence to prosecute persons who bear the greatest responsibility for serious violations of international humanitarian law and Sierra Leonean law committed in the territory of Sierra Leone since 30 November 1996 (arts. 2, 12, 13 and 14). In the light of its general comments No. 2 (2008) on the implementation of article 2 by States parties and No. 3 (2012) on the implementation of article 14 by States parties, the Committee reiterates to the State party the long-established jus cogens prohibition of torture, according to which the prosecution of acts of torture should not be subjected to any condition of legality or statute of limitation. The Committee considers that amnesty provisions that preclude prompt and fair prosecution and punishment of perpetrators of torture or ill-treatment violate the principle of nonderogability of the prohibition of torture and contribute to a climate of impunity. In view of this, the Committee urges the State party to repeal the amnesty provisions in the Lomé Peace Agreement (Ratification) Act of 1999 and to take all the necessary steps to ensure: (i) that cases of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment be thoroughly and promptly investigated in an impartial manner; (ii) that the perpetrators be subsequently tried and punished; and (iii) that steps be taken to provide reparation to the victims. Absolute prohibition of torture 10. The Committee notes with concern that section 20 of the Constitution does not absolutely prohibit torture under any and all circumstances, since paragraph 2 of the same section authorizes the infliction of any kind of punishment that was lawful before the entry into force of the Constitution. Neither does section 29 of the Constitution, regulating a state of public emergency, explicitly indicate either that the prohibition of torture is nonderogable (art. 2). The State party should repeal paragraph 2 of section 20, and make the necessary amendments to section 29, of the Constitution during its current Constitutional review process to legislate for the absolute prohibition of torture, explicitly providing that no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. The State party should also explicitly indicate in its national legislation that the statute of limitations shall not apply for the offence of torture. Fundamental legal safeguards 11. While noting that section 17, paragraph 2, of the Constitution provides that detainees have the right to access a lawyer from the outset of their deprivation of liberty, the Committee is concerned that this safeguard cannot be effectively implemented, since most detainees cannot afford a lawyer, and the National Legal Aid Board created in the Legal Aid Act, 2012 is yet to commence its work. The Committee is further concerned that, under section 17, paragraph 3, of the Constitution, detainees can be held for as long as 10 days in 3