CAT/C/CUB/CO/2 particular concern about the situation of José Daniel Ferrer and Oscar Elías Biscet (arts. 2, 11 and 16). The State party should take all necessary measures to: (a) prolonged; Ensure, in law and in practice, that pretrial detention is not excessively (b) Amend the Criminal Procedure Act to prevent indefinite prolongation of the examination of the preliminary case file; (c) Ensure independent judicial supervision of custodial measures and prompt access to legal assistance; (d) Ensure respect for the personal liberties and freedom of movement of persons released on extra-penitentiary leave, including their right to return to Cuba. Preventive security measures 12. The Committee expresses concern about the provisions of Chapter XI of Book I (Dangerousness and security measures) of the Criminal Code and in particular the definition, based on subjective and extremely vague concepts, of “dangerousness”, which purports to refer to “an individual’s particular proclivity to commit offences, as demonstrated by conduct that is manifestly contrary to the norms of socialist morality” (art. 72). The Committee takes note of the delegation’s explanation that criminal penalties are not imposed on persons declared to be “dangerous”. However, the Committee notes that the rehabilitative, therapeutic and supervisory measures established in articles 78 to 84 of the Criminal Code can entail internment in specialized labour, educational, care, psychiatric or detoxification institutions for a period of between 1 and 4 years. The Committee is concerned that it has received no information about conditions of internment in these institutions (arts. 2, 11 and 16). As part of the criminal legislation reform process announced by the delegation, the Committee recommends that the State party amend the aforementioned provisions of the Criminal Code with a view to ending the use of administrative detention on the basis of vague, subjective and imprecise criminal concepts such as pre-criminal social dangerousness. Monitoring and inspection of places of detention 13. The Committee notes that the Attorney-General’s Office and the Ministry of the Interior are empowered to inspect detention facilities and that, in accordance with legislation in force, judges and prosecutors have access to prisons and other detention facilities. However, the Committee has no information on the number and nature of the visits made by the Attorney-General’s Office or other agencies during the period under review, or on the content of the records and resolutions issued by the Attorney-General’s Office and the related follow-up. The Committee remains concerned about the lack of monitoring and systematic, effective, independent inspection of all places of detention and disagrees with the State party’s statement that the continuous improvement of the system does not call for other types of visit or additional assistance (arts. 11 and 12). The Committee reiterates the recommendation previously made to the State party in 1997 (A/53/44, para. 118 (d)) to establish an independent national system to effectively monitor and inspect all places of detention and follow-up on the outcome of this systematic monitoring. The Committee encourages the State party to consider the possibility of ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Convention with a view to establishing a system of regular GE.12-43596 5